[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 56 (Monday, March 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4604-S4641]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 1995

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 6 
hours for general debate on the subject of S. 219.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about Federal 
regulations. We are going to be on Senate bill S. 219. I want to 
compliment Senator Roth and the Governmental Affairs Committee for 
reporting this bill out. I also want to compliment the House of 
Representatives for their move in trying to make some progress on 
reining in the cost of excessive regulations. Federal regulations are 
estimated to cost about $581 billion, by some sources. It is hard to 
figure what that means, but per household, that is over $6,000--
actually $6,100 per household for the cost of Federal regulations. That 
increases the cost of everything we buy. Whether you are talking about 
your automobile or your home or your electric bill or the price that 
you pay for gasoline, regulations are involved in all these and have 
inflated the costs on every single thing that we buy.
  Many of us feel these regulations have been excessive and they have 
not been well thought out, or in some cases they are too expensive. I 
might mention, I guess almost all are probably well intended, and I do 
not fault anyone's intentions, whether it be the people who passed the 
legislation authorizing the regulations or the regulators. They may be 
well intended, but in many cases, the regulations have gone too far and 
they are far too expensive.
  So we have several measures that are working their way through this 
body and through the Congress to try to limit excessive regulations.
  The House passed a couple of measures. One was a measure called 
regulation moratorium. A similar bill was reported out of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. That is the bill we have on the floor 
of the Senate today. I, along with my colleague and friend from Nevada, 
Senator Reid, will be offering an amendment in the form of a substitute 
to that bill. I will discuss that in a moment.
  Also the Governmental Affairs Committee has reported out a 
comprehensive bill dealing with regulation overhaul. I compliment them 
for that effort. I think it is a giant step in the right direction. 
Senator Dole, myself, and others have introduced a very comprehensive 
bill. Likewise, I believe there is a markup scheduled in the Judiciary 
Committee on that bill as well.
  I compliment Senator Dole for his leadership because I think it makes 
sense. We should have regulations where the benefits exceed the costs. 
We should make sure we use real science. That is the purpose of both 
Senator Roth's bill and Senator Dole's bill that we will be considering 
on the floor my guess is sometime after the April recess.
  But the bill we have before us many people support--the regulation 
moratorium bill, S. 219. I am a sponsor of that bill. I believe we have 
36 sponsors. This is a bill that people have labeled a ``moratorium.'' 
I even have heard some people mislabel it, including the President, who 
said it was a ``moratorium on all regulations,'' good and bad 
regulations. I take issue with that because we had a lot of exceptions 
for good regulations and we had a lot of exceptions for regulations 
which people felt were necessary to go forward with, those regulations 
that dealt with imminent health and safety and regulations that dealt 
with ordinary administrative practices. The committee added more 
exceptions. The Committee on Governmental Affairs limited it to 
significant regulations. So we reduced the scope substantially.
  Why was that bill introduced? That bill was introduced because on 
November 14, the administration announced or published in the Federal 
Register that they were working on 4,300 different regulations that 
were in progress and that would be finalized in the year 1995 and 
beyond. Many of us were concerned. That looked like an explosion of 
regulations. Many of those regulations had been held up during the 
previous year. It happened to be an election year, and they were held 
up and published in the Federal Register on November 14.
  So we wanted to stop those or at least we wanted to have a chance to 
[[Page S4605]] look at them. So this moratorium regulation was 
introduced with a lot of sponsors. It eventually passed the House with 
a lot of exceptions, came through the Senate, was marked up in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, which added more exceptions and limited 
it to significant regulations. That was a moratorium.
  The amendment that Senator Reid, myself, Senator Bond, and Senator 
Hutchison are offering is a different approach. One, the moratorium 
that passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee is a temporary 
moratorium. It expires when we pass comprehensive legislation, or it 
expires at the end of the year. So it was only a temporary moratorium. 
The legislation we are introducing today provides for 45-day 
congressional review of regulations. During that time, Congress will be 
authorized to review and potentially to reject regulations through a 
resolution of disapproval before they become final.
  This alternative provides an opportunity to move forward on the 
critical issue of regulatory reform in a bipartisan manner. I think 
that is vitally important. This amendment will allow the authors of 
legislation in Congress to review and to ensure that Federal agencies 
are properly carrying out congressional intent. All too often agencies 
issue regulations which go beyond their intended purpose.
  For future significant rules, the alternative provides a 45-day 
period following publication of the final rule before that rule can 
become effective. Under the current law, most rules are already delayed 
by 30 days pending the filing of an appeal. This delay in the 
effectiveness would only apply to significant regulations which the 
amendment defines as final rules that meet one of four criteria set by 
the administration under Executive Order 12866. For all other future 
nonsignificant rules, the regulation of disapproval is in order, but 
the final rule is not suspended during the 45-day period.
  The alternative also provides an opportunity to review and reject 
significant rules which became final on or after November 20, 1994, and 
prior to the date of enactment. Such rules would not be suspended 
during the review period. Final regulations addressing threats to 
imminent health and safety or other emergencies, criminal law 
enforcement or matters of national security, could be exempted by 
Executive order from the postponement of the effective date provided 
for in this bill. However, a joint resolution of disapproval will still 
be eligible for fast-track consideration.
  The expedited floor procedure has in it consideration of base closure 
legislation as well as consideration of Federal Election Commission 
regulations. Congress will have 45 calendar days to review final rules 
and consider a resolution of disapproval.
  All final rules that are published less than 60 days before Congress 
adjourns sine die or that are published during sine die adjournment 
shall be eligible for review and fast-track disapproval procedures for 
45 days beginning on the 15th day after a new Congress convenes. A 
joint resolution may be introduced by any Member of Congress, and the 
fast-track process for moving the joint resolution of disapproval to 
the calendar is enabled under two conditions; First, if the authorizing 
committee reports out the resolution; or, second, if following the 
resolution's introduction the committee does not act, the majority 
leader of either House discharges the committee from further 
consideration of the resolution and places the resolution of 
disapproval directly on the calendar. The motion to proceed to 
consideration of the resolution is privileged and is nondebatable.
  I would like to note that last Thursday the Senate Governmental 
Affairs Committee reported out the comprehensive reform bill which 
includes this 45-day review proposal. However, it did not contain a 
look back to past regulations. Once the Senate has moved to proceed to 
the resolution of disapproval, the debate on the resolution is limited 
to 10 hours equally divided with no motions other than a motion to 
further limit debate or amendments being in order. If the resolution 
passes one body, it is eligible for immediate consideration on the 
floor of the other body.
  The joint resolution, if passed by both Houses, would be subject to a 
Presidential veto and in turn a possible veto override. By providing 
the mechanism to hold Federal agencies accountable before it is too 
late, this alternative makes an important contribution to the critical 
regulatory reform effort. I hope that my colleagues will join me in 
this effort.
  Mr. President, I would like to at this time mention and thank my 
friend and colleague, Senator Reid, from Nevada for his support in 
offering and working with me to offer this alternative or substitute to 
the regulation moratorium. I have had the pleasure of working with 
Senator Reid for many, many years now. We worked together on the 
measures that we called the Economic and Employment Impact Statement, a 
measure which is becoming law I guess as part of the unfunded mandate 
bill. He has been a real leader in trying to reform and limit the cost 
of excessive regulations. I compliment him for that successful effort 
in the past, and I look forward to a successful effort on this bill as 
well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma and my 
friend from Nevada for introducing this legislation, S. 219. Whenever 
it was announced that this bill was going to come to the floor at this 
time, I was pretty happy about it because a couple of weeks ago I 
chaired a field hearing in Kalispel, MT, to look at the new OSHA rules 
on the logging industry. I was as surprised as anybody.
  We have been receiving a lot of mail in our office from northwest 
Montana on how these new regulations as suggested by OSHA were really 
out of bounds this time. After all, the State of Montana has in place 
regulations for safety in the workplace, especially in the logging 
industry, and they are not strangers to the logging industry because it 
has been a part of the Montana scene for many, many years. But to go to 
that hearing and hear these loggers sit down and tell some of the 
horror stories that happened to them under these new rules and 
regulations was really an eye opener for me.
  We received comments not only from the State of Montana but folks 
from Idaho and folks from Oregon who flew over there to make that 
Saturday field hearing.
  Randy Ingraham, just to give you an idea, who is a training 
consultant for the Association of Oregon Loggers, was there and had the 
same comment basically as the Montana loggers, that Oregon's OSHA 
forest activities code book is as effective as the Federal standards.
  So what we have in this situation is regulations on top of 
regulations. If we really want to understand why Government is costing 
the taxpayers so many dollars nowadays, it is because of the 
redundancy. All the States, too, have an OSHA-type office that enforces 
safety rules in the workplace. States are familiar with the industries 
that are located within those States.
  Randy Ingraham's comments were very welcome. Don Rathman said OSHA 
needs to listen more to the industry rather than to people who have a 
philosophical idea on what the rules should be.
  Julie Espanosa: Return the control to States.
  Bill Copenhaver, from Seeley Lake, MT, said the same thing, that 
Montana standards basically are a little bit higher than those found in 
the Federal rules but the States show a willingness to work with 
employers and employees to make sure that the workplace is safe rather 
than just coming out and saying this little item here, something is 
wrong with it, so I am going to fine you and if you want to change it, 
that is fine. But next week we will fine you again if you do not. In 
other words, they are reluctant to work with employees for a safe 
workplace.
  Robert Cuddy, from Plains, MT; Dan Kanniburgh, from Marion, MT.
  The list goes on.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may put in the Record a 
couple statements from folks who testified at that committee hearing as 
they were given to me.
  There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

       My name is Arley Adams, doing business as Adams Wood 
     Products.
       [[Page S4606]] I'm a second generation logger in the timber 
     and saw mill industry. My son, Alan is the third generation 
     in the business and works with me.
       We have a logging and sawmill operation that can be 
     operated by two or ten men, but with OSHA standards and 
     Workmans Compensation rates, there is no way we can hire one 
     man. You wonder why there is so much unemployment? Its called 
     cause and effect.
       The rules and regulations that OSHA has at this time are so 
     far out of line that they will break every small operator.
       Sure, our business is dangerous but so are a lot of other 
     industries and sports.
       We are professionals in our business and we have an 
     excellent Safety Team in the Logging Association. We are well 
     aware of the dangers we are up against--we work with them 
     daily.
       OSHA thinks that we are so incompetent that they must hold 
     our hands and impede us with so much gear that they ``OSHA'' 
     will be the cause of the accidents they are trying to 
     prevent.
       When they break us all--they will have to feed us because 
     surely we can't be trusted with a dinner fork.
       The entire situation OSHA is trying to impose upon us is a 
     ``Major Disaster.'' If California got Disaster Relief from 
     the earthquake, we should be eligible too!
     Arley A. Adams.
                                                                    ____

                                                    March 9, 1995.
       Dear Senator Burns: As a working foreman for a logging 
     company in the state of Idaho, I work with safety problems on 
     a daily basis. We have about thirty-five (35) other workers 
     on the job.
       We pride ourselves in being able to have OSHA, the State, 
     or anyone else come on our job and see that we make the 
     working conditions as safe as humanly possible.
       We work closely with the people from the Idaho Logging 
     Safety Program and we know that most of the other contractors 
     in our area do also. We've put together safety programs, 
     weekly safety meetings, monthly safety meetings, and anything 
     else they've asked for.
       Then all of a sudden here come these new OSHA rules telling 
     us that we can't use diesel to start fires anymore and that 
     we can't fuel any of our machines with the engines running. 
     Do you people realize that you are talking to adults not five 
     year old kids. How many injuries have there been in the State 
     of Idaho from people using diesel to start a fire or from 
     fueling a vehicle with the engine running?
       These rules and some of the others I've read in the book 29 
     CFR 1910 and 1928 really have no place in a logging standard.
       Why don't you live with the Idaho Code. It as least let's 
     us use some common sense.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Terry Streeter,
     Foreman, Babbitt Logging, Inc.
                                                                    ____

       Senator Burns, members of the committee: My name is Paul 
     Tisher. I live in Libby, Montana, My partner's name is Paul 
     Brown and we own and operate TBC Timber, a small family-owned 
     business. We've been in business for 15 years and have nine 
     employees other than ourselves. We are (also) working members 
     of our crew.
       One of the new rules which concerns us most is under D. 
     General Requirements #5 called Environmental Conditions. It 
     read: All work shall terminate and each employee shall move 
     to a place of safety when environmental conditions, such as 
     but not limited to, electrical storms, high winds, heavy rain 
     or snow, extreme cold, dense fog, fires, mudslide and 
     darkness may endanger an employee in the performance of their 
     job. Senator, the interpretation of these conditions can mean 
     many things to different people. I can tell you, there have 
     been many times when our crew has had to sit out a storm, 
     whether it be wind, rain, or snow. But, the weather will be 
     what it will be, and we as stewards of this land will be out 
     there in the elements to support our families and sustain our 
     communities.
       Another proposed rule that ties in with these environmental 
     conditions is under Tree Harvesting #2 Manual Felling Section 
     #3. It reads: Each tree shall be checked for accumulations of 
     snow and ice. Accumulation of snow and ice that may create a 
     hazard for an employee shall be removed before felling is 
     commenced in the area or the areas shall be avoided. I hope 
     that OSHA didn't intend for us to remove the snow and ice by 
     ourselves, especially knowing that this would create an even 
     greater hazard. That leaves us with the two things that 
     usually remove snow and ice from trees, and that is wind or 
     rain. Senator, this really becomes confusing at this point. 
     We can't work if there's too much snow or ice in the trees. 
     So we finally get a good hard rain or some chinook winds that 
     remove all the snow and ice, but we can't work under these 
     conditions either. Then as conditions turn colder it starts 
     to snow and we get more build up in the trees. This can go on 
     for six or seven months in Montana and leaves us wondering 
     how we're going to be able to work under this type of rule.
       Who from OSHA can determine if conditions are too dangerous 
     to work in? What degree of wind, rain, snow, cold or fog will 
     constitute a total shutdown or the ensuing penalties if 
     operations are still working when they arrive. What 
     experience do they have in logging procedure and working with 
     outdoor elements that tell them one or more of these 
     conditions is too dangerous? We feel that the decisions on 
     Environmental Conditions should be left to the people who 
     make their living doing this and not by the Federal 
     Government.
       Being members of the Montana Logging Association, we as a 
     crew have all had training in First Aid, CPR, Blood Borne 
     Pathogens, Material Safety Data, and Safe Operating 
     Procedures. This training is done annually and is a key to 
     recognizing unsafe or potentially unsafe conditions. Holding 
     ourselves to these standards has become the norm in this 
     profession we call logging.
       Having said that, I would like to comment on a procedure 
     used by OSHA compliance officers during a jobsite visit. That 
     is the use of a video camera when questioning employers and 
     employees about the training they have had in reference to 
     what I just talked about. This, ``Camera In Your Face'' 
     session gives one the feeling that you've already done 
     something wrong or why would the want to get it on film in 
     the first place. I am sure that somewhere, in all of the many 
     hours of training we have had, someone will forget something, 
     but that doesn't mean all of a sudden we are in a hazardous 
     situation. With the camera rolling and knowing that the wrong 
     answer to a question can result in a training violation and 
     cost an employer up to $7000 per violation and also knowing 
     that you haven't done anything wrong and that you're not in a 
     hazardous situation nor have you created a hazardous 
     situation for a fellow worker, is frustrating and 
     intimidating to the point that the easiest of answers can be 
     forgotten.
       Senator, logging always has been and always will be a 
     dangerous occupation. We do not take this lightly. It is very 
     clear to us that training for, and providing a safe work 
     place will not only send us all home safely every night but 
     it is also essential for a company to stay in business. If we 
     believe in and practice these things then why do we need the 
     Federal Government to enforce what is already being done. 
     Common sense has been around a lot longer than OSHA and it 
     will be on the job when OSHA isn't. Please Senator, lets not 
     put any more rules into place that would jeopardize the use 
     of good common sense.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I do not know what the cost is, but in the 
new regulations they required boots for loggers that are not even being 
made. And I can see this fellow yet, who was described as the OSHA 
representative, up there to enforce these rules and regulations. You 
can pick him out of a thousand people. There he was.
  For instance, the employer is required to make sure that the 
employee's vehicle, if he drives to on-site logging, is safe; in other 
words, passes all the safety conditions of the State. The employer 
responsible for an employee's own private automobile? Now, that is 
overstepping a little bit.
  Also, I found out--and I am not a logger. I have been in the woods a 
little but not nearly that much. The renewable resource that I dealt 
with was grass. You do not take a chain saw to that; you take a cow to 
it. But, anyway, you have to use a Humboldt cut. In other words, when 
you take down a tree, you have to use the Humboldt cut. I had not heard 
of that. And neither, by the way, had the guy who wrote the rules. He 
said he just heard about it but he was not really familiar with what a 
Humboldt cut was. Basically, when you fell a tree, it is to prevent a 
kickback when the tree goes down. And that happens every now and again. 
In a select cut, no matter how remote or how steep, that tree can only 
be taken by mechanical means. Now, in some places you just do not get 
mechanical harvesters. What do you do? You let the tree just go, let it 
hang up and lose it? I do not think so.
  But these are rules and regulations that have been imposed on an 
industry which were written by an organization with basically very 
little common sense when it comes to logging.
  I just want to put these statements in the Record because I made a 
suggestion one time. After legislation is passed by this Congress, 
after it goes to the President for his signature and he signs it into 
law, what happens? That law is given to a faceless and nameless 
bureaucrat to write the administrative rules. We have enough evidence 
that most of those rules have nothing to do with the intent of the 
legislation. So I suggested that before the final rules go into the 
Federal Register, maybe they should come back to the committee of 
jurisdiction to make sure they do conform to the intent of the 
legislation.
  I mentioned that to a colleague of mine, and he said, ``Good Heavens, 
Senator, we never would get a law in place,'' at which I just grinned. 
I rested my case. Sometimes we should not have some of these laws 
passed. Maybe it should take a little longer. Maybe they should be 
debated a little more.
  [[Page S4607]] But I think we in this body, if we have been remiss in 
any part of our duty, it is in oversight and being involved in writing 
the administrative rules. If every Senator in this body went home and 
talked to the industry that is going to be affected, we would be 
acutely aware of the problems faced in private industry. And we wonder 
why they are struggling trying to make a living, especially our smaller 
companies, our small business people. Over 90 percent of the jobs in 
Montana are created by small business.
  So I thank any friend from Oklahoma, who is the author of this bill. 
It gives us 45 days to look at those rules. We should look at the 
rules. We should become actively involved in the rulemaking, especially 
if we are sponsors of a piece of legislation that has so much to do 
with the workplace and the ability of a small businessman to make a 
living at this time. Not only are they taxed to death; they are also 
ruled and regulated to death. So we need to do what we are supposed to 
do.
  It was suggested after the elections last year that Government 
reinvent itself. I do not know what the message was last November 8, 
but I will tell you this. You will get as many versions of that message 
as there are editorial writers or coffee klatches or Lions Clubs or 
Rotary Clubs, wherever people sit down and visit about the political 
arena. But I say they are saying to people involved in Government, it 
is time to sit down and reassess the real mission and the real role of 
Government. Why are we here and why is it costing the taxpayers so much 
money? And then we turn right around and force rules and regulations on 
them that cost them more.
  Everybody wants a safe workplace. That is not to say that we should 
not have some rules and regulations. But I say that whenever you put it 
in the rules and regulations that your car has to be safe--and that is 
just a suggestion--once you write it into the rules, then an inspector 
who wants to make a name for himself can say, ``Aha, that car is not 
safe. I will fine you $100,'' instead of saying, ``We have some 
problems here. Let us work with each other, let us iron them out. Let 
us make a safe workplace.'' In the logging industry especially, most of 
the companies are small, where you have the man who owns the company, 
plus he has four or five of his friends--and I mean his friends, not 
his employees--he works with in the woods.
  They know each other and they must know each other in order to have a 
safe environment in which to do business. They do not want to hurt each 
other, either. And they are all small.
  But I am saying, when just a suggestion is made in the Federal 
Register, it gives an inspector an idea that this is hard law and he 
can fine for it. So we just need to be a little bit prudent about what 
we put into rules and regulations.
  Nobody is arguing here that we take safety out of the workplace. We 
are saying we should approach it in a manner in which we can have the 
employee, the employer, and the Government entities, both State and 
Federal, work together to make that a safe workplace. I think this 
piece of legislation does it.
  I congratulate my friend from Nevada, Senator Reid, and my friend 
from Oklahoma. I wish his Oklahoma State Cowboys a lot of luck come 
this weekend.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend and colleague 
from Montana for his support for our amendment, and also thank him for 
his statement.
  I also wish to compliment the Senator from Montana, because he did 
something that many of us have not been doing. He has held some 
oversight hearings. He has had some of those people, many times we call 
them faceless bureaucrats, but he has had them come into his State and 
talk about some of the problems, whether it be in logging or forestry, 
and let them talk and actually meet those that they regulate.
  I believe the Senator said--correct me if I am wrong. The OSHA 
official who was writing the regs had not actually been involved in the 
logging industry but yet was writing rules and regulations dealing with 
everything from trucks to boots, and he has not actually met some of 
the people whom he was regulating.
  Is that correct?
  Mr. BURNS. That is correct.
  I also want to congratulate that man, though. The Senator from 
Oklahoma is correct. But the man that really wrote the regs did come to 
the hearings in Kalispell, MT. He sat down and gave his testimony, but 
he also stayed and listened to those loggers. He listened to them when 
we took public comment. When it was all over, he sat down with them and 
they started working some things out. I think we made headway, and that 
is fine and dandy.
  But basically, we should not have to do this. Common sense tells us 
it would be a lot better and a lot cheaper for everybody if we did not 
get ourselves into that kind of situation.
  I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate my colleague having the hearing. My guess 
is that meeting would not have transpired had it not been for the 
Senator from Montana and his insisting on that meeting.
  The fact is that those regulations or proposed regulations will 
probably be changed and improved dramatically because of the insistence 
of the Senator from Montana on having face-to-face meetings with people 
who are making the regulations and making the rules to meet with people 
that are directly impacted.
  One of the real positive things which I hope will come out of this is 
that Congress will become more active in oversight, just as the Senator 
from Montana proved that it can make a difference, certainly in his 
State.
  Again, I compliment him for it, and I thank him again for his 
statement.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, tomorrow, pursuant to the order--the bill 
not being before the Senate today--an amendment will be offered by the 
senior Senator from Oklahoma and this Senator as a substitute to S. 
219. I believe, Mr. President, that the substitute is a good solution 
to the problem that we are all concerned about, and that is excessive 
bureaucratic regulation.
  For example, Mr. President, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has 
estimated the cost of complying with regulations in the United States 
on a yearly basis at over $500 billion. That is almost 10 percent of 
our gross domestic product. It has also been estimated that the time 
spent on paperwork is almost 7 billion hours.
  Mr. President, I repeat that. Over $500 billion to comply with 
regulations and almost 7 billion man-hours to do that paperwork.
  We all know, Mr. President, that regulations serve a valid purpose 
and an important purpose. In fact, because of the regulatory framework 
that has been put in place for the last 50 or 60 years, we have 
workplaces that are safer. Hard-working Americans are less likely to be 
seriously injured on the job. There has been a tremendous reduction in 
the loss of limb or permanent disfigurement in the workplace as a 
result of Government regulations that were promulgated after we passed 
laws in this and the other body.
  We have, Mr. President, an airline industry that has the greatest 
safety record in the world; food that meets very safe requirements, but 
they are very strict. We have a country where, just 20-odd years ago, 
80 percent of all rivers were polluted. Now, that is down to 
approximately 20 percent. The numbers have been reversed as a result of 
the Clean Water Act.
  The problem is that all too often Congress passes a law with good 
intentions and very sound policy only to have the agencies, the 
governmental agencies, turn these simple laws into very complex 
regulations that go beyond the intent of Congress and many times make 
no sense. Ultimately, we create an environment where small 
businessowners must hire legal departments--and I do not say 
``lawyers''; legal departments--To comply with labor and environmental 
laws and other issues.
  In some instances, the regulations are so complex that a small firm 
has to hire a multitude of experts so they can 
[[Page S4608]] comply with the labor laws, the environmental laws, the 
tax laws. The reality has led Americans to become frustrated and 
skeptical of their Government as a result of overregulation.
  In a survey conducted by the Times Mirror, they found that, since 
1987, the number of Americans who believe regulations affecting 
businesses do more harm than good has jumped from 55 to over 63 
percent. It was not very good in 1987. It has only gotten worse, 
though.
  Why are we concerned?
  Well, Mr. President, if we look at the new regulations that have been 
promulgated by Federal agencies--and this does not count State and 
local agencies; we are not going to have any impact on that.
  But I have in my possession, and I show the Presiding Officer, 
regulations received since the 9th day of November 1994, that are 
economically significant, and those that are not economically 
significant.
  Remember, for us, those are terms of art. For the American public, 
they are not. We are talking about those that are economically 
significant, to be over $100 million.
  But look at them--page after page of these regulations. Those that 
are economically significant, 3 pages; those not economically 
significant, 12 pages of fine print.
  Market promotion program regulations; Department of Defense selection 
criteria for clothing and realigning military installations. It covers 
everything. Protest disputes and appeals.
  I would like to read that in more detail.
  Wool and mohair payment programs for shorn wool, wool and unshorn 
lambs, and mohair, even though, as you know, Mr. President, we repealed 
the law, but we are still promulgating regulations in that regard.
  Here is one that the Senator from California would, I am sure, 
appreciate, the junior Senator, I believe. Use of the term ``fresh'' on 
the labeling of raw poultry products.
  As you may recall, there has been a dispute that has arisen, as to: 
When you get a fresh turkey at Thanksgiving, is it really fresh? We 
have regulations promulgated on that.
  I am not going to go into more detail. We have 15 pages. And this is 
not up to date. This is a couple of weeks old.
  So I think the American public has something to be concerned about. 
There really are too many regulations.
  We have reason to believe that the American small business community 
really is concerned, and with good reason, for thinking that 
regulations do more harm than good.
  I believe, Mr. President, that if you look at some, I should say, 
unusual things that have gone on--we heard the Senator from Montana, 
and during this debate that will take place this week, we will hear all 
kinds of things that are going on--they really do not make a lot of 
sense. Of course, there are a lot of things that make sense.
  We need regulations, and the Senator from Nevada wants to make sure 
people understand, I am not against all regulations. I just want some 
commonsense direction for those regulations.
  There is an article out of Business Week from a month or so ago that 
talks about some of the good regulations, about when you go to the 
airport and they have overbooked the airplane and you wanted to go 
across the country; now there is a regulation that says they can give 
you a free ticket if they bump you off the flight.
  We have an example in the Clean Air Act where you can trade pollution 
rights, which is certainly very important, because we have had 
outlandish regulations.
  A company, Amoco York County Refinery, was required to spend $31 
million to reduce a small amount of benzene from its wastewater 
treatment plant when it could have reduced five times as much benzene 
elsewhere in the refinery at a cost of only $6 million. Those are some 
of the things that literally drive small businesses crazy and drive 
them out of business.
  So there are good regulations and bad regulations, and this 
legislation, Mr. President, is going to allow us to have more common 
sense in the way regulations are promulgated.
  I am convinced, and I have spoken with the Senator from Oklahoma at 
some length in this regard, that one of the things that will flow from 
this regulatory scheme that is in our substitute is that there will be 
fewer regulations promulgated because they know there will be a legal 
setup, a legal framework to review these regulations.
  The Senator from Oklahoma and I have been long involved in trying to 
do something about regulations. We have written op-ed pieces for 
newspapers that have been published. We introduced legislation last 
year that passed the Senate and was killed in conference that would 
have put dollar limits on regulations.
  Our approach this year with this substitute is an ongoing movement 
which we have tried to initiate to put common sense in the way 
regulations are promulgated. I repeat, I am convinced that our 
substitute will stop the issuance of many regulations.
  I believe the way to eliminate many of these problems is to establish 
a safety mechanism that will enable Congress to look at these 
regulations that are being promulgated and decide whether they achieve 
the purpose they were supposed to achieve in a rational, economic, and 
less burdensome way. This substitute, which I have already indicated I 
have cosponsored with Senator Nickles, goes a long way toward 
accomplishing this goal in a bipartisan fashion. I think this is 
important because I believe Americans want Congress to work together to 
make their Government work for them and not against them.
  This bill, in my opinion--our substitute--should alleviate the talk 
in this body about regulations. If this passes, I think we have a 
framework established to take care of the problem. There will be some 
who think we need to go a lot further, but I do not. I think if we can 
get this in place, we will be in real good shape.
  This bill has great potential, as I have indicated, for a bipartisan 
solution to the problem of costly and unnecessary regulations. The 
mechanics of this bill have been explained extremely well by the 
Senator from Oklahoma, and I am going to touch on it briefly.
  It provides a 45-day period for Congress to review new regulations. 
If the rule has an economic impact over $100 million, it is deemed 
significant and the regulation will not go into effect during the 45-
day review period. This 45-day review period will allow Congress to 
hold Federal agencies accountable before they become law and start 
impacting the regulated community.
  Mr. President, if the rule does not meet the $100 million threshold, 
the regulation will go into effect but will still be subject to fast-
track review. Even significant regulations may go into effect 
immediately if the President, by Executive order, determines that the 
regulation is necessary for health, safety, or national security, or is 
necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws. This is not subject to 
judicial review.
  So that is the general outline. We know the 45-day review process 
will begin when the rule is sent to Congress.
  We have spent a great deal of time, the Senator from Oklahoma and 
myself and our staffs, making sure that this legislation is 
constitutional. The Presiding Officer has had a long history of working 
on legal matters, having been attorney general, and this regulation, I 
am assured by all kinds of legal scholars, is constitutional.
  In fact, the man that argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court 
in 1983, the Chadha case, a man by the name of Mike Davidson, said:

       The key to Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha 
     was that Congress had excluded the President altogether from 
     its repeal of the Kenyan's stay of deportation. By sending 
     any ``resolution of disapproval'' to the President for a 
     final decision, Congress sidesteps the separation-of-power 
     questions raised by the Chadha case.

  So we are covered legally in this matter. If, during the course of 
the debate, we need to get into more legal argument, I will be happy to 
talk to the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, or anyone 
else concerned.
  Mr. President, I believe that this is a significant step forward from 
the underlying bill. I believe this substitute will allow an orderly 
process whereby we can review regulations that the 
[[Page S4609]] Federal branch of Government initiates. It will cause 
them to be more careful since the Chadha decision, in my opinion. 
Government agencies have been reckless, recognizing that there is not 
anything we can do about it. When this substitute passes, we will be 
able to do something about it, and I think it will rein in what I 
believe are some of the runaway rules that are being promulgated.
  Before closing, I would like to express my appreciation to the 
chairman and the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee 
for their hard work on this issue. I do not support the underlying 
legislation. I believe that this substitute is a significant 
improvement over what has come to us in the form of S. 219.
  I also take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the senior 
Senator from Oklahoma for his work on this issue. He has been a 
stalwart ally over many years working on this issue. I believe that we 
have now found a piece of legislation on which we can achieve a 
bipartisan passage in this body and, hopefully, when the matter goes 
before the conference, they will see the wisdom of adopting this very 
workable procedure to rein in runaway Government bureaucracy.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend and colleague, 
Senator Reid from Nevada, for his statement. I hope my colleagues had a 
chance to listen to it because I think it is well reasoned and shows 
there is bipartisan support for, I think, a commonsense idea, saying 
Congress should have an opportunity to review regulations and, if you 
are talking about really significant regulations, an expedited 
procedure to reject those.
  There are thousands of regulations. My guess is that we will reject a 
very, very small percentage. But at least we will have the 
congressional oversight and Congress will be hopefully more involved, 
just as the Senator from Montana was in dealing with an OSHA regulation 
in logging. Hopefully, more of our colleagues will become involved in 
monitoring and reviewing and trying to limit excess regulations and 
maybe in oversight find out the regulation is not acceptable. Maybe we 
will find out that it is acceptable. The Senator from Nevada has helped 
make that happen, and I am delighted to work with him in this effort.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to discuss a 
piece of legislation that simply makes no sense. I am speaking about S. 
219, the Regulatory Transition Act, or the regulatory moratorium, as it 
is more widely known. With all due respect to my colleagues who support 
this legislation--it is a bad bill, poorly conceived, arbitrary in 
scope, and reckless in its purpose. We should not be wasting our time 
on this legislation.


                              1. overview

  We all agree, I am sure, that the Federal regulatory process is in 
serious need of serious reform. Too many ill-considered and costly 
regulations are unfairly and unwisely weighing down our people, our 
businesses, and our State and local governments. Too often, Federal 
agencies are getting away with sloppy work that ends up costing jobs 
and economic growth across our great country. Yes, we need regulatory 
reform. But no, we do not need the regulatory moratorium.
  The moratorium legislation has been described as providing a brief 
time out for agencies to pause and reflect on their regulations. It is, 
however, much more than that. It basically stops work on all 
significant regulations and related policy statements and guidance for 
as much as 19 months. The moratorium period is retroactive from 
November 9, 1994, through December 31, 1995, with an additional 5-month 
delay; that is, until the end of May 1996 for statutory or judicial 
deadlines for agency action.
  This moratorium is unprecedented, and just plain wrong. It would stop 
good and bad regulations, alike. It's the old story of the thoughtless, 
stupid parent throwing out the baby with the bath water. I hope my 
remarks today will help my colleagues appreciate the heavy, heavy price 
that would be paid by the American people for this bill--death, 
injuries, disease, accidents, lost wages, lost investment, lost 
opportunities. A heavy price, indeed, for a freeze that fixes nothing.
  Again, at what price. Just before coming to the floor, I met with 
Nancy Donley who every day relives the loss of her child to an E. coli 
infection caused by tainted hamburger. USDA's reform of its meat 
inspection regulations would be stopped by the moratorium. I don't 
think there is one supporter of the moratorium who would dare look Mrs. 
Donley in the eye and say that we should stop the very rules that can 
save other families from the horrible tragedy she, and hundreds of 
other parents like her, have suffered.
  The moratorium is wrong, just plain wrong.
  Before I discuss the bill in detail, let me make one point very 
clear. Tomorrow, when the bill is formally taken up, I understand that 
its proponents will offer a substitute amendment. They will seek to 
replace the moratorium provisions with a proposal for a congressional 
veto of regulations. I want to be sure that my colleagues understand 
what is going on here.
  First, the plan for the substitute amendment shows that the 
proponents of the moratorium have finally realized how bad the 
moratorium really is. While they apparently cannot admit to its 
stupidity, they also cannot bring themselves to fight for it. So, they 
want to hide behind something new, something different, something that 
will not be ridiculed--and with the understanding that if the Senate 
passed it, there would be a conference with the House, in which the 
House-passed moratorium would be negotiated.
 Since conference reports are unamendable, this is a strategy for 
bringing to the Senate a moratorium that cannot be fixed. It is a 
blatant attempt to get through the back-door what the Republicans are 
now too ashamed to bring through the front-door--where it would be 
subject to sunshine and amendment.

  As for the planned substitute, it is a legislative veto for rules. 
Versions of this proposal are found in current regulatory reform bills.
  In fact, the Committee on Governmental Affairs, on which I serve, 
just last Thursday, March 23, voted unanimously--15 to zero, all the 
Republicans and all the Democrats--in favor of a legislative veto as an 
essential element in our comprehensive bipartisan regulatory reform 
bill. Let me add that for this larger accomplishment, the entire Senate 
owes a great deal of thanks to our committee chairman, Senator Roth of 
Delaware. He has shown real leadership in fashioning a tough, very 
tough, bipartisan regulatory reform bill. This is the real reform bill 
that we should be discussing, not the moratorium.
  Now, the legislative veto proposal, itself, is not a new idea. It is, 
I think, safe to say that it owes more to one of our colleagues, than 
to anyone else now in the Senate. The legislative veto is truly the 
brainchild of my good friend and colleague from Michigan, Carl Levin. 
Senator Levin has, since he came to the Senate 17 years ago, repeatedly 
proposed and argued for the legislative veto. Each and every version 
being considered in this Congress amounts to yet another revision of 
the Levin proposal of 1979.
  I support the legislative veto. It will mean a significant increase 
in our work--we must all realize this fact--but it keeps accountability 
where it belongs--here, in Congress. Also, as a part of a comprehensive 
reform of the regulatory process, the legislative veto can play an 
important role in providing review and accountability. At the same 
time, it avoids endless litigation and extensive judicial review, which 
is a major problem, indeed a fatal flaw, in other regulatory reform 
proposals.
  So, again, I support the legislative veto. But I do not support it as 
a moratorium substitute--not at all. First, we should not deal with the 
legislative veto as a stand-alone bill, because, as I said, it is in, 
and should be considered in the context of, the regulatory reform bills 
now moving toward the floor. Second, and even more importantly, it 
would be very dangerous for us to vote for the legislative veto as a 
substitute for S. 219. As I already said--the House has enacted a 
moratorium proposal.
  If we pass S. 219, whatever its contents, it will be conferenced with 
the House-passed moratorium bill. We 
[[Page S4610]] should not allow this result. We must not allow support 
for the legislative veto to divert us from the profound dangers of the 
underlying moratorium proposal.
  To avoid this result, and whatever happens with any substitute, the 
entire Senate should go on record opposing any conference report that 
might contain any moratorium.


         2. The Legislative Record of the Regulatory Moratorium

  Let me now review the moratorium proposal and what we discovered in 
considering this bill in the Governmental Affairs Committee.
  The proposal originated in the House as H.R. 450. I ask unanimous 
consent to insert into the Record copies of two articles from the 
Washington Post, ``Forging an Alliance for Deregulation,'' dated March 
12, 1995, and ``Truth Is Victim in Rules Debate,'' dated March 19, 
1995, as well as a Post op-ed, by Jessica Matthews, dated March 5, 
1995.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 12, 1995]

   Forging an Alliance for Deregulation--Representative DeLay Makes 
                Companies Full Partners in the Movement

               (By Michael Weisskopf and David Maraniss)

       The day before the Republicans formally took control of 
     Congress, Rep. Tom DeLay strolled to a meeting in the rear 
     conference room of his spacious new leadership suite on the 
     first floor of the Capitol. The dapper Texas Congressman, 
     soon to be sworn in as House majority whip, saw before him a 
     group of lobbyists representing some of the biggest companies 
     in America, assembled on mismatched chairs amid packing 
     boxes, a huge, unplugged copying machine and constantly 
     ringing telephones.
       He could not wait to start on what he considered the 
     central mission of his political career: the demise of the 
     modern era of government regulation.
       Since his arrival in Washington a decade earlier, DeLay, a 
     former exterminator who had made a living killing fire ants 
     and termites on Houston's wealthy west side, had been seeking 
     to eradicate federal safety and environmental rules that he 
     felt placed excessive burdens on American businesses.
       During his rise to power in Congress, he had befriended 
     many industry lobbyists who shared his fervor. Some of them 
     were gathered in his office that January morning at the dawn 
     of the Republican
      revolution, energized by a sense that their time was finally 
     at hand.
       The session inaugurated an unambiguous collaboration of 
     political and commercial interests, certainly not uncommon in 
     Washington but remarkable this time for the ease and 
     eagerness with which these allies combined. Republicans have 
     championed their legislative agenda as an answer to popular 
     dissatisfaction with Congress and the federal government. But 
     the agenda also represents a triumph for business interests, 
     who after years of playing a primarily defensive role in 
     Democratic-controlled Congresses now find themselves a full 
     partner of the Republican leadership in shaping congressional 
     priorities.
       The campaign launched in DeLay's office that day was quick 
     and successful. It resulted last month in a lopsided vote by 
     the House for what once seemed improbable: a 13-month halt to 
     the sorts of government directives that Democrats has viewed 
     as vital to ensuring a safe and clean society but that many 
     businesses often considered oppressive and counterproductive. 
     A similar bill is under consideration in the Senate, where 
     its chances of approval are not as certain.
       Although several provisions of the ``Contract With 
     America'' adopted by Republican House candidates last fall 
     take specific aim at rolling back federal regulations, the 
     moratorium was not part of that. In fact, as outline that day 
     in DeLay's office by Gordon Gooch, an oversized, folksy 
     lobbyist for energy and petrochemical interests who served as 
     the congressman's initial legislative ghost writer, the first 
     draft of the bill called for a limited, 100-day moratorium on 
     rulemaking while the House pushed through the more 
     comprehensive antiregulatory plank in the Contract.
       But his fellow lobbyists in the inner circle argued that 
     was too timid, according to participants in the meeting. Over 
     the next few days, several drafts were exchanged by the 
     corporate agents. Each new version sharpened and expanded the 
     moratorium bill, often with the interests of clients in 
     mind--one provision favoring California motor fleets, another 
     protecting industrial consumers of natural gas, and a third 
     keeping alive Union Carbide Corp.'s hopes for altering a 
     Labor Department requirement.
       As the measure progressed, the roles of legislator and 
     lobbyist blurred. DeLay and his assistants guided industry 
     supporters in an ad hoc group whose name, Project Relief, 
     sounded more like a Third World humanitarian aid effort than 
     a corporate alliance with a half-million-dollar 
     communications budget. On key amendments, the coalition 
     provided the draftsman. And once the bill and the debate 
     moved to the House floor, lobbyists hovered nearby, tapping 
     out talking points on a laptop computer for delivery to 
     Republican floor leaders.
       Many of Project Relief's 350 industry members had spent the 
     past few decades angling for a place of power in Democratic 
     governing circles and had made lavish contributions to 
     Democratic campaigns, often as much out of pragmatism as 
     ideology. But now they were in the position of being courted 
     and consulted by newly empowered Republicans dedicated to 
     cutting government regulation and eager to share the job.
       No congressman has been more openly solicitous in that 
     respect than DeLay, the 47-year-old congressional veteran 
     regarded by many lawmakers and lobbyists as the sharpest 
     political dealer among the ruling House triad that includes 
     fellow Texan Richard K. Armey, the majority leader, and 
     Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia.
       DeLay described his partnership with Project Relief as a 
     model for effective Republican lawmaking, a fair fight 
     against Democratic alliances with labor unions and 
     environmentalists. ``Our supporters are no different than 
     theirs,'' DeLay said of the Democrats. ``But somehow they 
     have this Christ-like attitude what they are doing [is] 
     protecting the world when they're tearing it apart.'' Turning 
     to business lobbyists to draft legislation makes sense, 
     according to DeLay, because ``they have the expertise.''
       But the alliance with business and industry demonstrated in 
     the push for a moratorium is not without peril for 
     Republicans, many GOP strategists acknowledge. The more the 
     new Republican leaders follow business prescriptions for 
     limited government in the months ahead, the greater the risk 
     that they will appear to be serving the corporate elite and 
     lose the populist appeal that they carried with them into 
     power in last November's elections.
       William Kristol, a key Republican analyst whose frequent 
     strategy memos, help shape the conservative agenda, said the 
     way congressional leaders deal with that apparent conflict 
     could determine their prospects for consolidating 
     congressional power. ``If they legislate for special 
     interests,'' he said, ``it's going to be hard to show the 
     Republican Party has fundamentally changed the way business 
     is done in Washington.''


                            the exterminator

       After graduating from the University of Houston with a 
     biology degree in 1970, Tom DeLay, the son of an oil drilling 
     contractor, found himself managing a pesticide formula 
     company. Four years later he was the owner of Albo Pest 
     Control, a little outfit whose name he hated but kept anyway 
     because a marketing study noted it reminded consumers of a 
     well-known brand of dog food.
       By his account, DeLay transformed Albo into ``the 
     Cadillac'' of Houston exterminators, serving only the finest 
     homes. But his frustrations with government rules increased 
     in tandem with his financial success. He disparaged federal 
     worker safety rules, including one that required his termite 
     men to wear hard hats when they tunneled under houses. And 
     the Environmental Protection Agency's pesticide regulations, 
     he said, ``drove me crazy.'' The agency had banned Mirex, a 
     chemical effective in killing fire ants but at first 
     considered a dangerous carcinogen by federal bureaucrats. By 
     the time they changed their assessment a few years later, it 
     was too late: Mirex makers had gone out of business.
       The cost and complexity of regulations, DeLay said, got in 
     the way of profits and drove him into politics. ``I found out 
     government was a cost of doing business,'' he said, ``and I 
     better get involved in it.''
       He arrived in the Texas legislature in 1978 with a nickname 
     that defined his mission: ``Mr. DeReg.'' Seven years later he 
     moved his crusade to Washington as the congressman from 
     Houston's conservative southwest suburbs. He sought to 
     publicize his cause by handing out Red Tape Awards for what 
     he considered the most frivolous regulations.
       But it was a lonely, quixotic enterprise, hardly noticed in 
     the Democrat-dominated House, where systematic regulation of 
     industry was seen as necessary to keep the business community 
     from putting profit over the public interest and to guarantee 
     a safe, clean and fair society. The greater public good, 
     Democratic leaders and their allies in labor and 
     environmental groups argued, had been well served by 
     government regulation. Countless highway deaths had been 
     prevented by mandatory safety procedures in cars. Bald eagles 
     were flying because of the ban on DDT. Rivers were saved by 
     federal mandates on sewerage.
       DeLay nonetheless was gaining notice in the world of 
     commerce. Businessmen would complain about the cost of 
     regulation, which the government says amounts to $430 billion 
     a year passed along to consumers. They would cite what they 
     thought were silly rules, such as the naming of dishwashing 
     liquid on a list of hazardous materials in the workplace. 
     They pushed for regulatory relief, and they saw DeLay as 
     their point man.
       The two-way benefits of that relationship were most evident 
     last year when DeLay ran for Republican whip. He knew the 
     best way to build up chits was to raise campaign funds for 
     other candidates. The large number of open congressional 
     seats and collection of strong Republican challengers offered 
     him an unusual opportunity. He turned to his network of 
     business friends and lobbyists. ``I sometimes overly 
     prevailed on'' these allies, DeLay said.
       [[Page S4611]] In the 1994 elections, he was the second-
     leading fund-riser for House Republican candidates, behind 
     only Gingrich. In adding up contributions he had solicited 
     for others, DeLay said, he lost count at about $2 million. 
     His persuasive powers were evident in the case of the 
     National-American Wholesale Grocers Association PAC, which 
     already had contributed $120,000 to candidates by the time 
     DeLay addressed the group last September. After listening to 
     his speech on what could be accomplished by a pro-business 
     Congress, they contributed, another $80,000 to Republicans 
     and consulted DeLay, among others, on its distribution.
       The chief lobbyist for the grocers, Bruce Gates, would be 
     recruited later by DeLay to chair his antiregulatory Project 
     Relief. Several other business lobbyists played crucial roles 
     in DeLay's 1994 fund-raising and also followed Gates's path 
     into the antiregulatory effort. Among the most active were 
     David Rehr of the National Beer Wholesalers Association, Dan 
     Mattoon of BellSouth Corporation, Robert Rusbuldt of 
     Independent Insurance Agents of America and Elaine Graham of 
     the National Restaurant Association.
       At the center of the campaign network was Mildred Webber, a 
     political consultant who had been hired by DeLay to run his 
     race for whip. She stayed in regular contact with both the 
     lobbyists and more than 80 GOP congressional challengers, 
     drafting talking points for the neophyte candidates and 
     calling the lobbyist bank when they needed money. 
     Contributions came in from various business PACs, which 
     Webber bundled together with a good-luck note from DeLay.
       ``We'd rustle up checks for the guy and make sure Tom got 
     the credit,'' said Rehr, the beer lobbyist. ``So when new 
     members voted for majority whip, they'd say, `I wouldn't be 
     here if it wasn't for Tom DeLay.'''
       For his part, DeLay hosted fundraisers in the districts and 
     brought challengers to Washington for introduction to the PAC 
     community. One event was thrown for David M. McIntosh, an 
     Indiana candidate who ran the regulation-cutting Council on 
     Competitiveness in the Bush administration under fellow 
     Hoosier Dan Quayle. McIntosh won and was named chairman of 
     the House regulatory affairs subcommittee. He hired Webber as 
     staff director.
       It was with the lopsided support of such Republican 
     freshmen as McIntosh that DeLay swamped two rivals and became 
     the majority whip of the 104th Congress. Before the vote, he 
     had received final commitments from 52 of the 73 newcomers.


                               the freeze

       The idea for Project Relief first surfaced before the 
     November elections that brought Republicans to power in the 
     House for the first time in 40 years. Several weeks after the 
     election, it had grown into one of the most diverse business 
     groups ever formed for specific legislative action. Leaders 
     of the project, at their first post-election meeting, 
     discussed the
      need for an immediate move to place a moratorium on federal 
     rules. More than 4,000 regulations were due to come out in 
     the coming months, before the Republican House could deal 
     with comprehensive antiregulatory legislation.
       DeLay agreed with the business lobbyists that a regulatory 
     ``timeout'' was needed. He wrote a letter to the Clinton 
     administration Dec. 12 asking for a 100-day freeze on federal 
     rule-making. The request was rejected two days later by a 
     mid-level official who described the moratorium concept as a 
     ``blunderbuss.'' DeLay then turned to Gooch to write 
     legislation that would do what the administration would not.
       At the Jan. 3 meeting in DeLay's office, Paul C. Smith, 
     lobbyist for some of the nation's largest motor fleets, 
     criticized Gooch's draft because it excluded court-imposed 
     regulations. He volunteered to do the next draft and came 
     back with a version that addressed the concerns of his 
     clients. Under court order, the EPA was about to impose an 
     air pollution plan in California that might require some of 
     Smith's clients--United Parcel Service and auto leasing 
     companies--to run vehicles on ultraclean fuels, requiring the 
     replacement of their fleets.
       Smith removed the threat with a stroke of his pen, 
     extending the moratorium to cover court deadlines. He also 
     helped Webber add wording in a later amendment that extended 
     the moratorium from eight to 13 months.
       Peter Molinaro, a mustachioed lobbyist for Union Carbide, 
     had a different concern: He wanted to make sure the 
     moratorium would not affect new federal rules if their 
     intention was to soften or streamline other federal rules. 
     The Labor Department, for example, was reviewing a proposal 
     to narrow a rule that employers keep records of off-duty 
     injuries to workers. Union Carbide, Molinaro noted in an 
     interview, had been fined $50,000 for violating that rule and 
     was eager for it to be changed.
       For his part, Gooch wanted to make sure that the routing, 
     day-to-day workings of regulatory agencies would not be 
     interrupted by a moratorium. His petrochemical clients rely 
     on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to make sure 
     natural gas and oil, used in their production processes, flow 
     consistently and at reasonable rates.
       Gooch said he had ``no specific mission'' other than 
     helping DeLay. ``I'm not claiming to be a Boy Scout,'' he 
     added. ``No question I thought what I was doing was in the 
     best interests of my clients.''
                              the war room

       On the first day of February, 50 Project Relief lobbyists 
     met in a House committee room to map out their vote-getting 
     strategy for the moratorium bill. Their keynote speaker was 
     DeLay, who laid out his basic objective: making it a veto-
     proof bill by lining up a sufficient number of Democratic 
     cosponsors. They went to work on it then and there.
       Kim McKernan of the National Federation of Independent 
     Business read down a list of 72 House Democrats who had just 
     voted for the GOP balanced budget amendment, rating the 
     likelihood of their joining the antiregulatory effort. The 
     Democrats were placed in Tier One for gettable and Tier Two 
     for questionable.
       Every Democrat, according to participants, was assigned to 
     a Project Relief lobbyist, often one who had an angle to 
     play.
       The nonprescrition drug industry chose legislators with 
     Johnson & Johnson plants in their districts, such as Ralph M. 
     Hall of Texas and Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey. David 
     Thompson, a construction industry official whose firm is 
     based in Greenville, S.C., targeted South Carolina 
     congressman John M. Spratt Jr.
       Federal Express, with its Memphis hub, took Tennessee's 
     John S. Tanner. Southwestern Bell Corp., a past campaign 
     contributor to Blanche Lambert Lincoln of Arkansas, agreed to 
     contact her. Retail farm suppliers picked rural lawmakers, 
     including Charles W. Stenholm of Texas.
       As the moratorium bill reached the House floor, the 
     business coalition proved equally potent. Twenty major 
     corporate groups advised lawmakers on the eve of debate Feb. 
     23 that this was a key vote, one that would be considered in 
     future campaign contributions.
       McIntosh, who served as DeLay's deputy for deregulation, 
     assembled a war room in a small office just off the House 
     floor to respond to challenges from Democratic opponents. His 
     rapid response team included Smith, the motor fleet lobbyist, 
     to answer environmental questions; James H. Burnley IV, an 
     airline lobbyist who had served as transportation secretary 
     in the Reagan administration, to advise on transportation 
     rules; and UPS lobbyist Dorothy Strunk, a former director of 
     the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, to tackle 
     workplace issues. Project Relief chairman Gates and lobbyists 
     for small business and trucking companies also participated.
       When Republicans leaders were caught off guard by a 
     Democratic amendment or alerted to a last-minute problem by 
     one of their allies, Smith would bang out response on his 
     laptop computer and hand the disk to a McIntosh aide who had 
     them printed and delivered to the House floor.
       The final vote for the moratorium was 276 to 146, with 51 
     Democrats joining DeLay's side. Still 14 votes short of the 
     two-thirds needed to override a veto, the support exceeded 
     the original hopes of Project Relief leaders.
       One week later, DeLay appeared before a gathering of a few 
     hundred lobbyists, lawmakers and reporters in the Caucus Room 
     of the Cannon House Office Building to celebrate the House's 
     success in voting to freeze government regulations and, in a 
     pair of companion bills, curtail them. He stood next to a 
     five-foot replica of the Statue of Liberty, wrapped from neck 
     to toe in bright red tape, pulled out a pair of scissors, and 
     jubilantly snipped away.
       Standing next to him, brandishing scissors of his own, was 
     the chairman of Project Relief.
                                                                    ____

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 19, 1995]

Truth Is Victim in Rules Debate--Facts Don't Burden Some Hill Tales of 
                            Regulatory Abuse

                           (By Tom Kenworthy)

       As Congress wages war on the federal regulatory system, 
     anecdotal evidence of nonsensical rules and innocent victims 
     has been a powerful weapon in the push to enact measures that 
     will temporarily halt rule-making, protect property owners 
     and ensure new regulations are worth the cost.
       Many of these purported examples, however, have the ring of 
     truth, but not the substance.
       Consider the ``regulatory overkill'' cited by Rep. Michael 
     Bilirakis (R-Fla.) during floor debate last month. ``The 
     Drinking Water Act currently limits arsenic levels in 
     drinking water to no more than two to three parts per 
     billion,'' said Bilirakis. ``However, a regular portion of 
     shrimp typically served in a restaurant contains around 30 
     parts per billion.''
       Arsenic, a known human carcinogen, has been subject to 
     regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency since 1976. 
     The drinking water standard is now not two or three parts per 
     billion, but 50 parts per billion. And according to EPA 
     officials, the arsenic found in water and the arsenic found 
     in shrimp and other seafood are chemically quite different. 
     The type of arsenic found in seafood is organic; in water, 
     arsenic is predominantly inorganic, and far more toxic.
       Bilirakis, a former judge, declined a request for an 
     interview, but his press spokesman explained that Bilirakis 
     relied on his colleague, Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.), whose 
     use of the shrimp example during a congressional hearing last 
     year was reported in The Washington Post.
       While rhetorical exaggerations or sloppy staff work are not 
     new phenomena in congressional debates, the determination of 
     [[Page S4612]] House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and other 
     Republican leaders to push through their ``Contract With 
     America'' agenda in 100 days or less has meant that complex 
     and far-ranging legislation has been debated and passed in an 
     unusually short period. And nothing in the contract deals 
     with an area as complicated as regulatory reform or generates 
     as much apocryphal rhetoric on both sides.
       Veteran Democrats, who in some cases helped write the 
     regulations now under attack, warned their colleagues during 
     the debate of the consequences of moving so quickly. Rep. 
     John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) said of the regulatory moratorium: 
     ``The unknown and unintended consequences caused by the 
     hurried consideration of this legislation will emerge for 
     members in embarrassing and unwanted ways in weeks and months 
     ahead.''
       And Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), lamented the making of 
     ``policy on the basis of false or misleading anecdotal 
     information.'' Proponents, said Markey, ``claim that the 
     Consumer Product Safety Commission had a regulation requiring 
     all buckets have a hole in the bottom of them so water can 
     flow through and avoid the danger of someone falling face 
     down into the bucket and drowning. . . . Now, that would be 
     ridiculous regulation, if it existed. But the truth is that 
     there has never been such a rule.''
       Nothing slowed down the determination of House Republicans 
     to change the regulatory system, and the debate now moves to 
     the Senate, where the legislation is expected to emerge from 
     committees in more moderate form.
       During the two weeks the bills were considered in the 
     House, the rhetoric on both sides was heated and the 
     examples, even the hypothetical ones, not always precise.
       Suppose scientists develop a vaccine for the AIDS virus but 
     tests show it causes one case of cancer for every million 
     patients, Rep. Robert S. Walker (R-Pa.) told reporters as the 
     House took up the risk assessment bill. Because of that one 
     cancer case, a provision of federal law called the Delaney 
     Clause would require the Food and Drug Administration to keep 
     the life-saving vaccine off the market, he said in a 
     triumphant demonstration of the rigidity of federal 
     regulation.
       It sounded like a compelling argument--except for one not 
     so small detail. The Delaney Clause has nothing to do with 
     drug approvals. It is, as Walker conceded later when asked 
     about it, a section of federal law that deals with 
     carcinogens that could show up in processed food, primarily 
     pesticide residues.
       Even opponents of the House GOP's anti-regulatory agenda 
     such as Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol 
     M. Browner concede that there are examples of government 
     heavy-handedness in enforcing laws on health and the 
     environment.
       ``Unfortunately,'' Browner added, ``much of the debate has 
     been conducted in sound bites. Changes of this magnitude 
     should be based on a vigorous debate with all of the facts on 
     the table. What we saw was instance after instance of stories 
     that don't even come close to resembling reality or the truth 
     of the matter.''
       The property rights bill--which gives landowners the right 
     to claim compensation from the government if a portion of 
     their property loses 20 percent or more of its value because 
     of rules governing wetlands, endangered species and other 
     environmental restrictions--was also fertile ground for 
     embellished anecdotes.
       During the House debate, Rep. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin (D-
     La.), a leading advocate of the property rights legislation, 
     told a moving story of what he called government 
     ``arrogance'' in enforcing wetlands regulations. The tale 
     involved the families of John Chaconas and Roger Gautreau in 
     Ascension Parish, La., whom he characterized as victims of 
     flawed wetlands laws and overzealous bureaucrats from the 
     Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection 
     Agency.
       The Gautreaus, said Tauzin, built a home after getting 
     approval from the Corps to dig a pond and use the fill as a 
     foundation. Then they built another home on part of their 
     property and sold it to the Chaconas family. According to 
     Tauzin, the Corps then swept in, told the Gautreaus the dirt 
     road that provides access to the two houses was on a wetland 
     and could not be used, and told the Chaconas family they 
     might have to forfeit their house.
       John Chaconas, however, is refusing to play the part of 
     victim assigned to him by Tauzin. In testimony prepared last 
     week for delivery to a House task force on wetlands, Chaconas 
     said he strongly supports wetlands regulation. He said he was 
     victimized not by the government but by the Gautreaus, and 
     that now his family ``is being played as pawns by politicians 
     to justify their opposition to current wetlands law.''
       In his prepared testimony, Chaconas tried to correct 
     Tauzin's rendition of the story. Gautreau, said Chaconas, had 
     failed to get a permit to dredge and fill wetlands despite 
     being advised to do so by the Soil Conservation Service, and 
     his actions had caused drainage problems for neighbors. 
     Chaconas is now suing Gautreau and others over the real 
     estate transaction.
                                                                    ____

                [From the Washington Post, Mar. 5, 1995]

                          Horror in the House

                          (By Jessica Mathews)

       Every one of the most frequently cited horror stories used 
     to justify the regulatory ``reform'' passed by the House last 
     week is a fabrication. That tells a lot about the intent and 
     the wisdom of the legislation.
       You've almost surely heard about how states thousands of 
     miles from Hawaii are forced to test their water for a 
     pesticide used only on pineapples. (Truth: The pesticide was 
     used on 40 crops before being banned as a probable 
     carcinogen. It's been found in 16 of the 25 states that have 
     tested for it, often at unsafe levels.)
       Anchorage, so it is said, had to add fish wastes to its 
     water so it could then remove them, thereby cleaning its 
     sewage by the required 30 percent. (Truth: No one had to add 
     fish wastes to the water--that's how they've been routinely 
     disposed of. The 30 percent standard is the price of being 
     exempted from secondary sewage treatment. Anchorage's 
     complaint is about having to meet the most basic primary 
     treatment standard.)
       There is also the OSHA leaky bucket story, the rodent 
     habitat that caused homes to burn in a wildfire and the baby 
     teeth as hazardous wastes story. All sound too nutty to be 
     true, and they are. The facts have been distributed--and 
     ignored--all over Capitol Hill, but by now the stories are 
     gospel.
       As you might suspect from the quality of the rationale, the 
     new legislation is not an honest attempt at regulatory 
     reform. Like the balanced budget amendment, it is in part an 
     admission of failure. Out of frustration at its inability to 
     correct those laws and regulations that are flawed, Congress 
     has grabbed at a measure to indiscriminately weaken all 
     regulations, good and bad.
       Far more perniciously, the bill is also a blackdoor attempt 
     to undo 35 years of environmental progress, a step for which 
     there is so little public support that it would never be 
     attempted frontally. Do not be misled. The measure 
     effectively repeals the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act 
     and every other statute that makes health, safety or 
     environmental protection the guiding standard. If it becomes 
     law, cost-effectiveness and ``flexibility'' (left undefined 
     for the courts to figure out) will replace those standards.
       What cost-effectiveness and flexibility appear to mean, in 
     the opinion of former Republican senator Robert Stafford, is 
     that providing asthma drugs to children who go to school near 
     a paper mill could be the preferred choice over pollution 
     controls on the mill. Former interior secretary James Watt's 
     hat and suntan lotion solution to ozone depletion also leaps 
     to mind.
       The bill tries to pin down the Gulliver of government 
     regulation in the worst possible way--with analyses, 
     paperwork and endless opportunities for delay in the courts. 
     It requires 22 separate analyses before a regulatory action. 
     It opens 60 new bases for judicial challenge. EPA things the 
     agency would need nearly 1,000 additional employees to 
     fulfill its requirements.
       Cost-benefit analysis is made a rigid, one-size-fits-all 
     solution to every regulatory choice. While it is a modestly 
     useful aid to decision-making, cost-benefit analysis cannot 
     bear this burden. It does not reduce one whit the scientific 
     and economic uncertainties that bedevil regulatory disputes, 
     nor sidestep the need for value judgments. All its does is to 
     put the guesswork into a formal analytical framework.
       At the end, however, an assumption is an assumption no 
     matter how sophisticated the mathematical trappings. The 
     answers cost-benefit analysis provides can never be better 
     than guesses about the future costs of new technology (nearly 
     always exaggerated) or imponderables like the worth of 20 
     lost IQ points or the dollar value of wilderness. Frequently, 
     the answers are far worse than what judgment can provide 
     because any factor to which a number cannot be attached must 
     be dropped from consideration, even it happens to be the most 
     important. Precisely because cost-benefit analysis seems to 
     provide an objective, definitive answer, yet is so highly 
     dependent on assumptions, it is ideally suited to ideological 
     manipulation.
       This latest bit of the ``Contract With America'' is not 
     regulatory reform at all but a parody of reform. It takes the 
     worst aspects of the present system--paperwork, delay, 
     bureaucratic heavy-handedness--and makes them worse. It 
     lessens regulators' opportunities to use common sense and 
     makes them personable liable to huge fines for such crimes as 
     ``misallocating resources.'' It turns normal conflict-of-
     interest provisions inside out. Its intent is to throw sand 
     in the government's crankcase, not to improve the quality of 
     its actions.
       Under normal circumstances the measure would stand little 
     chance of becoming law. Its assault on three decades of 
     bipartisan environmental achievement, in particular, is not 
     what Americans want. But genius and the trap of Gingrich's 
     100-day deadline is that not only is there no time for 
     legislators to understand what they're doing, neither the 
     media nor the public can keep up. Major bills fly out of 
     committee and onto the floor in a day or two and before 
     anyone has taken a close look at one, another has taken its 
     place. The House bill has a close match in the Senate 
     sponsored by Majority Leader Robert Dole. And while the 
     administration has made noises about a veto, so far the 
     silence from the bully pulpit has been deafening.
       Plenty of laws and regulations need reform. There's only 
     one way to achieve it--the old-fashioned way, one law at a 
     time, individually, on the merits.


[[Page S4613]]

  Mr. GLENN. These articles show how the moratorium sprung from the 
minds of people intent not on a better or smarter Government, but a 
dumber Government--slow, inefficient, less likely to act on behalf the 
public interest.
  A review of the progress of the House bill confirms my view of this 
bill. House sponsors moved the starting date around several times so 
that some rules could go forward and others would be caught. And 
despite the broad sweep of the moratorium, special exemptions were soon 
added.
  The exemptions ranged from a promise in committee by the chief 
sponsor to protect watermelon marketing orders--according to the 
National Journal's Congress Daily, February 2, 1995, page 5--to floor 
amendments exempting a variety of FCC matters, China sanctions, customs 
modernization, airline safety, and other issues.
  In the Senate, the record is quite similar to that of the House. On 
February 7, 1995, the Governmental Affairs Committee held the first of 
five regulatory reform hearings. On the seventh, we heard testimony 
from the majority leader and a number of other Senators, including the 
primary sponsor of the moratorium, Senator Nickles. As our committee's 
majority report says:

       Senator Nickles stated that the purpose of the temporary 
     moratorium is to give Congress enough time to pass 
     legislation to comprehensively change the regulatory process.

  With due respect to my colleague from Oklahoma, since that hearing we 
have devoted several weeks to the moratorium and now are on the floor 
to debate it--this is all time that has taken away from regulatory 
reform, I am sorry to say, not added to it.
  On February 22, 1995, the committee devoted an entire hearing to the 
moratorium. This hearing reinforced my conviction that the moratorium 
is a bad idea. Mr. Rainer Mueller, a businessman from California, 
described his personal tragedy of the death of his 13-year-old son to 
E. coli infection and the impact of the moratorium on USDA regulations. 
Witnesses from the Department of Transportation and the Food and Drug 
Administration described specific health and safety rules that would be 
stopped by the moratorium. Examples of such rules from other agencies 
provided a clear picture of the potential destructive impact of the 
moratorium on important government actions on behalf of public health 
and safety.
  While other witnesses told of regulations that certainly should be 
reviewed, if not rescinded, the thought of stopping all rules, 
including the meat inspection rules, in an effort to get at those bad 
rules, was simply not convincing. And ironically, one witness pointed 
out that the revised moratorium proposal before the committee would 
only stop significant rules, the very rules that already undergo the 
most rigorous regulatory analysis under Presidential Executive order.
  Finally, Sally Katzen, Administrator of OMB's Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs [OIRA] told of the President's current order to 
agencies to review existing rules and eliminate or revise outdated or 
conflicting rules. This review will be completed in about ten weeks. it 
seems to me that we should get this information before even thinking 
about stopping regulations.
  When asked about requirements for regulations, Ms. Katzen also 
confirmed something that the former Republican EPA general counsel, 
Donald Elliot, told the committee on February 15, 1995. As much as 80 
percent of all rules are mandated by Congress. This is a very important 
fact. It shows that if anything, we in Congress are the problem, not 
the agencies. We pass strict laws that agencies must implement section 
by section, letter by letter.
  It is simply the worst kind of legislative schizophrenia for Congress 
to pass laws and require agencies to implement them, and then turn 
around and tell them to stop doing what we just asked them to do in the 
first place--and with a few exceptions, without even regard to human 
health and safety.
  Again, I can only say that an effort targeted at bad rules makes 
sense, but to shoot down all rules, good and bad alike, just makes no 
sense at all.
  On March 7 and 9, 1995, the committee met to mark up the moratorium 
bill. Debate among the committee members about the scope of the bill 
and its exemptions and exceptions highlighted one of the biggest 
problems with the moratorium; that is, the way in which it would stop 
important regulations, such as those that protect the American people 
from serious health and safety risks.
  While purporting to be a moratorium on all significant regulations, 
the bill's sponsors recognized that this broad sweep is not a good idea 
and accepted several amendments to exempt specific rules. But, they 
also rejected others. To look at what was accepted and what was 
rejected shows the arbitrary nature of the bill.
  The committee accepted the following exemptions:
  First, an exemption for rules to ``ensure the safety and soundness of 
a Farm Credit System institution or to protect the Farm Credit 
Insurance Fund.''
  Second, an exemption for rules on ``commercial, recreational, or 
subsistence * * * hunting, fishing, or camping.'' Among other things, 
this would allow the annual revision of duck hunting regulations to go 
forward. These rules are very important to the economic health of many 
regions in our country. Just ask Senator Pryor from Arkansas, or 
Senator Wellstone from Minnesota--their States would be significantly 
hurt by even a delay in the hunting season.
  Third, an exemption for rules on overflights on national parks.
  Fourth, an exemption for any rule to enforce ``statutory rights that 
prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, age, 
national origin, or handicapped or disability status.''
  Fifth, an exemption for aircraft safety, including rules ``to improve 
airworthiness of aircraft engines.''
  Sixth, an exemption for ``safety and training standards for commuter 
airlines.''
  Seventh, an exemption for EPA rules to ``protect the public from 
exposure to lead from house paint, soil or drinking water.''
  Eighth, an exemption for rules on ``highway safety warning devices'' 
at railroad crossings.
  Ninth, an exemption for negotiated rulemakings under the Indian Self-
Determination Act Amendments of 1994.
  Tenth, an exemption for rules to ``provide compensation to Persian 
Gulf War Veterans for disability from undiagnosed illnesses, as 
provided by the Persian Gulf War Veterans' Benefits Act.''
  Even with that wide range of exemptions, the committee's majority 
rejected the following exemptions:
  First, an exemption for USDA rules to ``reduce pathogens in meat and 
poultry.''
  Second, an exemption for EPA rules to ``control of microbial and 
disinfection byproduct risks in drinking water supplies.''
  Third, an exemption for rules to ensure safe and proper disposal of 
radioactive waste, as well as any action regarding decontamination and 
decommissioning of NRC-licensed sites.
  Fourth, an exemption for health and safety rules, where the agency 
``has concluded to the extent permitted by law that the benefits 
justify the costs.''
  Fifth, an exemption for any rule that ``enforces constitutional 
rights of individuals.''
  Sixth, an exemption for rules required by statutory or judicial 
deadlines.
  Seventh, an exemption for rules that are the ``consensual product of 
regulatory negotiation pursuant to the Regulatory Negotiation Act.''
  These amendments were rejected, and they were rejected on a straight 
party-line vote. To show how arbitrary these votes were, let me just 
compare one or two of the amendments that were accepted with amendments 
that were rejected.
  The committee accepted an amendment to exempt from the moratorium EPA 
rules to ``protect the public from exposure to lead from house paint, 
soil or drinking water,'' but rejected an amendment to exempt EPA rules 
to ``control of microbial and disinfection supplies.'' Why lead and not 
water--don't my Republican friends recall that Cryptosporidium in 
drinking water killed over 100 people in Milwaukee, WI, and made 
400,000 people sick?
  The committee accepted an amendment to exempt rules that would 
clarify responsibilities among railroad 
[[Page S4614]] companies, State and local governments ``regarding 
highway safety warning devices'' at railroad crossings, but rejected an 
amendment to permit the reform of USDA meat inspection rules that will 
help reduce the 500 annual deaths and 20,000 annual instances of 
disease, not to mention the millions of dollars in costs, caused by 
food-borne illness.
  Or perhaps, we should compare railroad crossing safety with 
radioactive waste cleanup. Again, the majority of the committee 
accepted the railroad crossing exemption--offered by a Republican 
member of the committee--but rejected on a party-line vote my amendment 
to exempt rules to ensure rules on safe disposal of radioactive waste. 
I hope to come back to this issue later, but I cannot understand how my 
colleagues could so easily dismiss standards for disposing of 
plutonium-contaminated waste--radioactive waste that must be kept 
safely from humans for at least 10,000 years.
  The majority of the committee also rejected several important 
amendments offered by Senator Levin that would actually have helped the 
proposal make more sense. Retroactivity, an extra moratorium for 
deadlines, onerous reporting requirements, ill-defined definitions--
these were provisions that just made no sense, as Senator Levin 
correctly pointed out. But these were rejected, as well. As usual, my 
good friend from Michigan saw through the rhetoric, could appreciate 
the details, not to mention the broad policy issues, and accurately 
pointed out the internal flaws of the moratorium process--but to no 
avail. The marching orders were given, and the votes made.
  I am simply at a loss to understand how my esteemed colleagues across 
the aisle can explain these votes. What in the world will you tell the 
American people? Here you are, saying that you want to reform the 
regulatory process, that you want to stop bad regulations, that you 
want rules to pass cost/benefit tests, and that you want agencies to be 
governed by scientific risk assessments.
  But when it comes time to vote, then the special interests come to 
call, and you listen. And who pays the price? Rainer Mueller and Nancy 
Donley can tell you the price they paid. Which of your constituents do 
you want to share in Mr. Mueller's or Ms. Donley's pain? I am sorry, 
but with all due respect, I do not want to have that pain, that injury, 
that sickness, that suffering, that death on my conscience. The sorrow 
for me, however, is that as a Member of this body, if we pass a 
moratorium bill, we will all share in the blame. We will bring the 
Senate down yet again in the eyes of our people. No wonder they have 
lost respect for Washington.
  As I asked at the markup, ``Are we saying that we'll protect the 
rights of duck hunters, but not the right our children to eat safe 
food?'' This makes no sense.
  Do my Republican colleagues really understand what burden they are 
taking on when they support the moratorium. I only hope they can admit 
to having second thoughts, and think better of their too-hasty 
endorsement of a bill that would make government more arbitrary, more 
senseless, more unwielding, more blind, more insensitive, more of what 
Americans do not want from their Government.
  Finally, with regard to committee action on the moratorium, let me 
point out that the majority in the committee voted to expand the 
moratorium to cover: first, wetlands, determinations; and second, any 
action that ``withdraws or restricts recreational, subsistence, or 
commercial use'' of public land.
  I have a lot of sympathy with those who are fed up with the way the 
wetlands program is run. I think it should be closely scrutinized and 
reformed in a number of ways. I do not think, however, that a 
regulatory moratorium is the way to accomplish that reform.
  Regarding the second expansion, that is, the inclusion in the 
moratorium of any action that ``withdraws or restricts recreational, 
subsistence, or commercial use'' of public land, I am, again, at a 
loss. Do the supporters of the moratorium really mean to stop virtually 
all government action in our national parks, forest, refuges, and 
monuments?
  This provision would mean, as we wrote in our minority views on the 
committee report:

       That National Park Service employees would not be able to 
     carry out basic management responsibilities in our national 
     parks. The Park Service would not be able to prevent hot rods 
     from racing in national parks, restrict access to fragile 
     archaeological sites, or close dangerous passes on snow-
     covered peaks. As the National Parks and Conservation 
     Association has said, ``This prohibition against rulemaking 
     effectively eliminates the abilities of the Bureau of Land 
     Management, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife 
     Service and the Forest Service to manage federal lands for 
     resource protection.''

  While the moratorium's supporters reject these questions and 
criticisms with the statement that the bill permits the President to 
exempt rules he thinks are really important, I take our legislative 
responsibility seriously. I am confronted by a bill that makes no sense 
on its own and makes no sense in the context of regulatory reform. So, 
I cannot support it. It is as simple as that.
  So that my colleagues can truly appreciate the damage that would be 
done by this legislation, I ask unanimous consent to include in the 
Record a summary of the amendments considered by the committee in its 
markup on March 7 and 9; letters regarding the moratorium's impact on 
the American people; a copy of our minority views to the committee 
report on the moratorium bill; and a list of rules that would be 
stopped by the moratorium.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            Governmental Affairs Committee Markup of S. 219

       Accepted:
       (1) Roth Substitute for S. 219 (voice vote, 3/7): Limits 
     moratorium to ``significant regulatory action taken during 
     the moratorium period'' (no longer action ``made effective'' 
     during the moratorium); extends moratorium period to ``time 
     beginning November 9, 1994, and ending on December 31, 1995, 
     unless an Act of Congress provides for an earlier termination 
     date for such a period.'' limits judicial review language to 
     ``No determination under this Act shall be subject to 
     adjudicative review before an administrative tribunal of 
     court of law.''
       (2) Cochran amendment to exempt ``any action taken to 
     ensure the safety and soundness of a Farm Credit System 
     institution or to protect the Farm Credit Insurance Fund.'' 
     (voice vote, 3/7).
       (3) Pryor amendment to exempt ``any agency action that 
     establishes, modifies, opens, closes, or conducts a 
     regulatory program for a commercial, recreational, or 
     subsistence activity relating to hunting, fishing, or 
     camping, if a Federal law prohibits such activity in the 
     absence of agency action.'' (voice vote, 3/7).
       (4) Akaka amendment to exempt ``the promulgation of any 
     rule or regulation relating to aircraft overflights on 
     national parks by the Secretary of Transportation or the 
     Secretary of Interior pursuant to the procedures specified in 
     the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking published on March 
     17, 1994, at 59 Fed. Reg. 12740 et seq.'' (voice vote, 3/7).
       (5) Levin amendment to exempt ``any significant regulatory 
     action which establishes or enforces any statutory rights 
     that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, 
     sex, age, national origin or handicapped or disability 
     status.'' (voice vote, 3/7).
       (6) Glenn amendment to exempt ``any regulatory action to 
     improve safety, including such an action to improve 
     airworthiness of aircraft engines.'' (voice vote, 3/7).
       (7) Glenn amendment to exempt ``any regulatory action that 
     would upgrade safety and training standards for commuter 
     airlines to those of major airlines.'' (voice vote, (3/9).
       (8) Glenn amendment to exempt ``any regulatory action by 
     the Environmental Protection Agency that would protect the 
     public from exposure to lead from house paint, soil or 
     drinking water.'' (voice vote, 3/9).
       (9) Thompson amendment to exempt ``any clarification of 
     existing responsibilities regarding highway safety warning 
     devices'' (intended to cover railroad crossings). (voice 
     vote, 3/9).
       (10) McCain amendment to exempt actions ``limited to 
     matters relating to negotiated rulemaking carried out between 
     Indian tribal governments and that agency under the `Indian 
     Self-Determination Act Amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-
     413'.'' (voice vote, 3/9).
       (11) Grassley amendment to include in the moratorium 
     actions to ``carry out the Interagency Memorandum of 
     Agreement Concerning Wetlands Determinations for Purposes of 
     Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Subtitle B of the Food 
     Security Act (59 Fed. Reg. 2920); or any method of 
     delineating wetlands based on the Memorandum of Agreement for 
     purposes of carrying out subtitle C of title XII of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.) or section 404 
     of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1344).'' (voice vote, with opposition, 3/7).
       (12) Stevens amendment to extend the moratorium to include 
     any action that ``withdraws or restricts recreational, 
     subsistence, 
     [[Page S4615]] or commercial use of any land under control of 
     a Federal agency, except'' with respect to ``military or 
     foreign affairs or international trade'' or ``principally 
     related to agency organization, management, or personnel.'' 
     and to define ``public property'' as ``all property under the 
     control of a Federal agency, other than land'' (in order to 
     preclude any Presidential exemptions of public land rules 
     under the public property exemption in section 5(F). 
     (accepted 8-5, 3/7).
       (13) Glenn amendment to exempt ``any regulatory action to 
     provide compensation to Persian Gulf War Veterans for 
     disability from undiagnosed illnesses, as provided by the 
     Persian Gulf War Veterans' Benefits Act.'' (accepted 8-6, 3/
     9).
       Rejected:
       (1) Glenn amendment to exempt ``any regulatory action to 
     reduce pathogens in meat and poultry taken by the Food Safety 
     and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
     including Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) 
     regulations.'' (rejected 7-7, 3/7).
       (2) Glenn amendment to exempt ``any regulatory action by 
     the Environmental Protection Agency that relates to control 
     of
      microbial and disinfection byproduct risks in drinking water 
     supplies.'' (rejected 7-8, 3/9).
       (3) Glenn amendment to exempt ``any regulatory actions to 
     ensure safe and proper disposal of radioactive waste, as well 
     as any action regarding decontamination and decommissioning 
     of NRC-licensed sites. (rejected 7-8, 3/9).
       (4) Levin amendment to exempt ``any significant regulatory 
     action the principal purpose of which is to protect or 
     improve human health or safety and for which a cost-benefit 
     analysis has been completed and the head of the agency taking 
     such action has concluded to the extent permitted by law that 
     the benefits justify the costs.'' (rejected 7-7, 3/7).
       (5) Levin amendment to: Eliminate retroactivity of the 
     moratorium, making the period ``from the date of enactment of 
     this Act until December 31, 1995'' (rather than starting on 
     November 9, 1994); require the President to ``publish in the 
     Federal Register a list of all rules covered by [the 
     moratorium]'' (a one-time reporting rather than a monthly 
     reporting requirement); and limit the moratorium to 
     significant, final rules (no longer extending the moratorium 
     to a ``substantive rule, interpretative rule, statement of 
     agency policy, guidance, guidelines, or notice of proposed 
     rulemaking''). (rejected 7-8, 3/9).
       (6) Levin amendment to exempt any deadlines from the 
     moratorium that are statutorily or judicially mandated. (The 
     amendment deletes ``Section 4. Special Rule on Statutory, 
     Regulatory, and Judicial Deadlines''). (rejected 7-8, 3/9).
       (7) Levin amendment to delete the five month extension of 
     the moratorium for deadlines. (the current bill states that 
     ``any deadline for . . . any significant regulatory action . 
     . . is extended for 5 months after the end of the moratorium, 
     whichever is later.'') (rejected 7-8, 3/9).
       (8) Levin amendment to exempt ``any significant regulatory 
     action which is the consensual product of regulatory 
     negotiation pursuant to the Regulatory Negotiation Act.'' 
     (rejected 7-8, 3/9).
       Tabled:
       (1) Levin amendment to exempt ``any significant regulatory 
     action which enforces constitutional rights of individuals.'' 
     (Table 8-7, 3/7).
       S. 219 as amended was reported out of Committee on March 9, 
     1995 (vote 6-5).
                                                                    ____

         General Board of Church and Society of the United 
           Methodist Church,
                                   Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
       Dear Senator: I am writing you on behalf of the General 
     Board of Church and Society, the public policy advocacy 
     agency of The United Methodist Church, to express strong 
     opposition to S. 219, the Regulatory Transition Act.
       On March 4, 1995, our Board of Directors from throughout 
     the country stated the following: ``Public protections, such 
     as those dealing with food safety, safe drinking water, 
     worker health and safety, equal educational opportunity, 
     civil rights, motor vehicle safety, toxic pollution, the 
     well-being of children, and health care, are under attack 
     through Congressional initiatives [such as S. 219] to reduce 
     or eliminate federal laws and regulations. We believe the 
     federal government has an important role in protecting the 
     public interest and in improving quality of life. We believe 
     that undermining federal safeguards will cause serious harm 
     to people and the environment. These Congressional 
     initiatives also jeopardize services provided by public 
     charities and religious and governmental entities valued by 
     our society . . . Accordingly, we oppose any actions that 
     might be taken by the Congress to undermine sensible 
     safeguards.''
       The health and safety of people and the planet has always 
     been an important concern for our Church. I urge you not to 
     let the popular cry of cutting red tape lead to the sacrifice 
     of the health and wholeness of our children and God's 
     Creation. Vote no on S. 219.
           Sincerely yours,
                                      Dr. Thom White Wolf Fassett,
     General Secretary.
                                                                    ____

                                   The League of Women Voters,

                                                   March 16, 1995.
     To: Members of the U.S. Senate.
     From: Becky Cain, President.
     Re: Anti-Regulatory Legislation.
       The League of Women Voters is deeply distresed over current 
     anti-regulatory legislation designed to seriously undermine 
     the regulatory process as it applies to health, safety and 
     environmental protections. We urge you to oppose such 
     legislation.
       We believe that extreme anti-regulatory measures would 
     subvert the federal government's authority and ability to 
     protect the health and well-being of the American people. For 
     many years, we have watched the progress as the lives of 
     citizens have been improved through the projections provided 
     by federal regulations. By requiring risk/benefit analysis 
     and additional layers of review, the proposed legislation 
     will not streamline regulatory procedures, but will 
     complicate and add years and costs to the regulatory process.
       The League of Women Voters has long supported efforts to 
     assure that government provides opportunities for citizen 
     participation in government decision making, promotes the 
     conservation and wise management of natural resources in the 
     public interest and protects the well-being of our citizens--
     particularly children. We believe that the underlying premise 
     that regulations should be based solely on the basis of their 
     cost to the private and public sectors is fundamentally 
     wrong. It is essential that the benefits to the American 
     people, such as health and safety, be an integral and 
     paramount part of the regulatory process.
       The League is equally concerned about the ``takings'' 
     provisions of anti-regulatory proposals. Again, legislation 
     is couched in pro-citizen terms, but would result in a more 
     burdensome regulatory process. The ``takings'' proposals 
     being considered by Congress would require the government to 
     compensate property owners when a government regulation may 
     reduce value by even a small amount. The affected regulations 
     include those that protect the environment, provide for food 
     safety, and protect individual citizens. ``Takings'' 
     legislation could cost federal, state and local governments 
     billions of dollars, while costing citizens their health and 
     safety.
       The League of Women Voters urges you to consider 
     thoughtfully and carefully the current anti-regulatory moves 
     on Capitol Hill. While there may be individual regulatory 
     processes that need some streamlining, extremist proposals 
     are not the solution. It is critical that we not lose sight 
     of the purpose of these regulations, which is to provide a 
     cleaner environment and a brighter future for our children. 
     We urge you to vote against extreme anti-regulatory 
     legislation brought before the Senate.
                                                                    ____

                                                Center for Science


                                       in the Public Interest,

                                                   March 16, 1995.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of our more than 800,000 members 
     nationwide, the Center for Science in the Public Interest 
     (CSPI) urges you to oppose S. 219, the Regulatory Transition 
     Act. CSPI is a non-profit consumer advocacy organization that 
     focuses on matters relating to nutrition and health.
       We urge you to oppose S. 219 because the bill will prevent 
     government agencies from issuing new regulations that will: 
     Modernize our nation's meat safety inspection system and 
     reduce thousands of deaths now caused by contaminated food; 
     set new nutritional standards for school lunches and improve 
     the dietary habits of our nation's children; establish safety 
     standards for the labeling and packaging of iron supplements, 
     which have caused fatal poisoning in children.
       These are just a few of the many essential measures that 
     government agencies should be allowed to take in order to 
     safeguard our health and safety. Efforts to impose a 
     moratorium on new government regulations could cost thousands 
     of American lives. A moratorium means that government 
     agencies responsible for protecting consumer health will be 
     stopped in their tracks and prevented from doing their jobs.
       Accordingly, we urge you to oppose S. 219.
           Sincerely,
                                                Bruce Silverglade,
     Director of Legal Affairs.
                                                                    ____



                                              Consumers Union,

                                                   March 16, 1995.
       Dear Senator: Consumers Union urges you to vote NO on S. 
     219, the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995, when it comes to 
     a vote on the Senate floor next week. S. 219 is a bad idea 
     for consumers and for the public health and safety.
       S. 219, with few exceptions, would paralyze until the end 
     of this year most agency activities to develop health and 
     safety--as well as other important--regulations.
       Among the pending rulemakings that the bill would halt is 
     one by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to deal with deadly 
     bacteria in our meat and poultry supply. You are well aware 
     of the recent, tragic deaths and serious illnesses that have 
     resulted from e. coli bacteria in meat. The Department should 
     be congratulated and encouraged to, not delayed from, dealing 
     with this serious public health problem--and others like it.
       Also pending is an Environmental Protection Agency 
     rulemaking to deal with cryptosporidium in public water 
     supplies. This is the bacterium that recently caused one-
     hundred deaths and four-hundred thousand illnesses when it 
     contaminated Milwaukee's water supply. This proposed testing 
     standard, too, as well as other pending EPA public health 
     rules, would be frozen in mid-process by S. 219.
       [[Page S4616]] Surely, consumers should be able to eat from 
     the commercial food supply and drink from public water 
     supplies without risking their lives or their health. But S. 
     219 will stand in the way of moving closer quickly to this 
     goal.
       A ``NO'' vote on S. 219 will be a ``yes'' vote for public 
     health and safety. And for common sense. Please vote ``NO''.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Mark Silbergeld,
     Codirector.
                                                                    ____

                    Citizens for Sensible Safeguards


            coalition opposes regulatory moratorium (s. 219)

       Citizens for Sensible Safeguards, a coalition of more than 
     200 organizations representing working men and women and 
     those concerned about environmental, educational, civil 
     rights, disability, health, social services, low income, and 
     consumer issues, strongly opposes a regulatory moratorium 
     (enclosed is a Citizens for Sensible Safeguards Statement of 
     Principles and a listing of members). We strongly urge 
     members of the Senate to vote against S. 219, The Regulatory 
     Transition Act of 1995.
       We are opposed to this bill because it would jeopardize the 
     health and safety of all Americans. Proponents of the bill 
     point out that there is an exemption for regulatory 
     activities that present an ``imminent threat to health or 
     safety or other emergency'' or for enforcement of criminal 
     laws. However, the bill does not define an ``imminent threat 
     to health or safety''. Would a regulation that has been in 
     progress for a year be considered an ``imminent'' threat?
       The proposed bill places a higher premium on protecting 
     rules for duck hunters than for our children. There is a 
     specific exemption from the moratorium for rules dealing with 
     duck hunting, but when Committee amendments were offered 
     dealing with protections for children, Republicans defeated 
     them. We think that is inappropriate.
       The coalition also feels that the moratorium raises serious 
     Constitutional concerns. In one fell swoop, the bill suspends 
     the power of the executive branch to implement laws and of 
     the courts to enforce regulatory adjudication. This bill has 
     enormous repercussions for the separation of powers 
     established under the Constitution and will seriously limit 
     the ability of the President to faithfully execute the laws 
     of the land.
       There are many unintended consequences of the bill. For 
     example, an amendment offered by Sen. Stevens (R-AK) adds to 
     the definition of ``significant'' any agency action that in 
     any way ``restricts recreational, subsistence, or commercial 
     use of any land under the control of a Federal agency.'' He 
     stated that he doesn't want commercial activity on public 
     lands to suffer because of the moratorium. However, this 
     would block virtually all pro-environmental agency actions on 
     public lands, including national parks, and would only serve 
     to hurt the environment, permitting as it does new agency 
     rules to accommodate ``forest health'' logging.
       Overall, the coalition believes that a regulatory 
     moratorium is a flawed idea. No number of exemptions from the 
     moratorium will be enough to fix the bill.
       Discussions are occurring at the present time concerning 
     the substitution of alternative bills such as legislation 
     allowing a Congressional veto of regulations. Under such a 
     plan, the Congress would have 45 days to review final 
     ``major'' rules and then be able to pass a Joint Resolution 
     to disapprove of any such rules. The President could veto the 
     resolution and then the Congress would have authority to 
     override the veto. Such a bill would have a chilling impact 
     on the agency regulatory process and permit powerful special 
     interests to shape regulations by threatening Congressional 
     action. Accordingly, the Coalition opposes such a substitute 
     to S. 219.
                    Citizens for Sensible Safeguards


                        Statement of Principles

       Public protections, such as those dealing with food safety, 
     safe drinking water, worker health and safety, equal 
     educational opportunity, civil rights, motor vehicle safety, 
     toxic pollution, the well-being of children, and health care, 
     are under attack through Congressional initiatives to reduce 
     or eliminate federal laws and regulations. The following 
     organizations believe the federal government has an important 
     role in protecting the public interest and in improving 
     quality of life. We believe that undermining federal 
     safeguards will cause serious harm to citizens. These 
     Congressional initiatives also jeopardizes services provided 
     by public charities and religious and governmental entities 
     valued by our society.
       Buried in the Contract with America's rhetoric about 
     shrinking government and rolling back red tape is a plan to 
     undo laws, and safeguards that citizens have struggled long 
     and hard to champion. We strongly support improving laws and 
     safeguards that protect citizens while recognizing the need 
     to reduce unnecessary and red tape. The zeal to minimize 
     regulatory burdens, however, must be balanced with the need 
     to ensure protections for all Americans. Accordingly, we 
     oppose actions taken by Congress to undermine sensible 
     safeguards.
       We urge President Clinton and Congress not to let the 
     popular cry of cutting red tape--something we all believe 
     in--become a guise for dismantling federal safeguards that 
     should be preserved.


                          coalition structure

       Citizens for Sensible Safeguards has three standing 
     committees: National Strategy Committee, chaired by American 
     Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, 
     National Education Association, and OMB Watch; Grassroots 
     Strategy Committee, chaired by OMB Watch, Sierra Club Legal 
     Defense Fund, and United Cerebral Palsy Associations; and 
     Media/Message Committee, chaired by American Oceans Campaign 
     and Service Employees International Union.
       A Steering Committee overseas coalition activities. The 
     Steering Committee is currently comprised of AFL-CIO, 
     American Civil Liberties Union, American Federation of State, 
     County, and Municipal Employees, American Oceans Campaign, 
     the Arc, Families USA, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, 
     National Education Association, Natural Resources Defense 
     Council, OMB Watch, Public Citizen, Service Employees 
     International Union, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, United 
     Auto Workers, United Cerebral Palsy Associations, United 
     Methodist Church, and US PIRG. OMB Watch chairs the 
     coalition.
       Signers (as of 3/3/95):
       20/20 Vision; Action of Smoking and Health; Advocated for 
     Youth; AFL-CIO.
       Citizens for Public Action on Blood Pressure and 
     Cholesterol, Inc.; Citizens For Reliable And Safe Highways; 
     Clean Water Action; Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy 
     and Research; Coalition for New Priorities; Coalition on 
     Human Needs; Coast Alliance; Colorado Rivers Alliance; Common 
     Agenda Coalition; Communications Workers of America; 
     Community Nutrition Institute; Community Women's Education 
     Project; Consumer Federation of America; Cornucopia Network 
     of New Jersey; Council for Exceptional Children; Defenders of 
     the Wildlife; Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO; 
     Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund; Earth Island 
     Institute; Earth Island Journal; Ecology Center of Ann Arbor; 
     Ecology Task Force; Environmental Action Foundation; 
     Environmental Defense Center; Environmental Defense Fund.
       Environmental Research Foundation; Environmental Working 
     Group; Epilepsy Foundation of America; Families USA; Family 
     Service America; Food and Allied Service Trades Department, 
     AFL-CIO; Food Research and Action Center; Friends Committee 
     on National Legislation; Friends of the Earth; Frontlash; 
     Great Lakes United; Hamlet Response Coalition; Harmarville 
     Rehabilitation Center; Health and Development Policy Project; 
     Helen Keller National Center; Humane Society of the United 
     States; Interfaith Impact; Inter/National Association of 
     Business, Industry and Rehabilitation; International 
     Association of Fire Fighters; International Brotherhood of 
     Teamsters; International Chemical Worker's Union; 
     International Federation of Professional and Technical 
     Engineers; International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union; 
     International Longshoreman's and Warehouseman's Union; 
     International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, 
     Machine, and Furniture Workers; Izaak Walton League of 
     America; James C. Penney Foundation; Justice for All; 
     Kentucky Waterways Alliance.
       Ozone Action; Pacific Rivers Council; People For the 
     American Way Action Fund; Philaposh; Physicians for Social 
     Responsibility; Protestant Health Alliance; Public Citizen; 
     Public Employee Department, AFL-CIO; Public Employees for 
     Environmental Responsibility; Public Voice for Food and 
     Health Policy; Rhode Island Committee on Occupational Safety 
     and Health; River Network; Rivers Council of Washington; 
     Safefood Coalition; Scenic America; Service Employee's 
     International Union; Sierra Club; Sierra Club Legal Defense 
     Fund; Society For Animal Protective Legislation; Southern 
     Utah Wilderness Alliance; Special Vocational Education 
     Services in PA; Spina Bifida Association of America; 
     S.T.O.P.--Safe Tables Our Priority; Telecommunications for 
     the Deaf, Inc.; The Arc; The Loka Institute; The Newspaper 
     Guild; The Wilderness Society; Trout Unlimited.
       Union of American Hebrew Congregations; Union of Concerned 
     Scientists; Unitarian Universalist Association; Unitarian 
     Universalist Service Committee; United Auto Workers; United 
     Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO; 
     United Cerebral Palsy Associations; United Church of Christ, 
     Office for Church in Society; United Electrical, Radio, and 
     Machine Workers of America; United Food and Commercial 
     Workers International Union; United Methodist Church, General 
     Board of Church and Society; United Mineworkers Union; United 
     Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, and Prospect Workers of America; 
     United Steelworkers of America; US PIRG; Vocational 
     Evaluation and Work Adjustment Association; Western 
     Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety & Health; 
     Western New York Council on Occupational Safety and Health; 
     Wider Opportunities for Women; Women Employed; Women of 
     Reform Judiasm, The Federation of Temple Sisterhoods; Women's 
     Environment and Development Organization; Women's 
     International League for Peace and Freedom; Women's Legal 
     Defense Fund; Women's National Democratic Club.
                                                                    ____

                                 National Wildlife Federation,

                                   Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
       Dear Senator: Next week, the Senate will be considering the 
     Regulatory Moratorium bill, S. 219. This legislation will 
     impose a moratorium on all federal regulatory actions 
     [[Page S4617]] from November 9, 1994 until December 31, 1995. 
     Any regulatory action affecting the environment, public 
     health or safety, or impacting the economy by $100 million or 
     more in any calendar year would be halted.
       I am writing to urge you to oppose S. 219, the Regulatory 
     Moratorium bill. This legislative bludgeon, adopted by the 
     House in February, would halt major federal environmental 
     programs, such as regulations implementing the Clean Air Act, 
     or establishing new guidelines for mineral development on 
     public lands.
       The Regulatory Moratorium is a crude instrument being used 
     to address concerns about specific federal regulatory 
     programs, however, health and safety programs, food and drug 
     programs, the environment, housing and all other branches of 
     government will be affected.
       The devastating impact of a regulatory moratorium on the 
     government is further compounded by an amendment introduced 
     by Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), and adopted by the Senate 
     Government Affairs Committee last week. The Stevens Amendment 
     would stop the federal government from taking any action to 
     restrict ``recreational, subsistence or commercial use of the 
     public lands.'' The effect of the Stevens Amendment on 
     federal programs is staggering.
       Land use planning efforts to balance resource uses and 
     values on the National Parks, Refuges, National Forests and 
     Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands would be stopped.
       Most permitting activities of the federal land management 
     agencies would be held up.
       The federal government's ability to respond to fire, flood 
     and other threats would be thwarted.

                           *   *   *   *   *

                                                                    ____

                                                 National Wildlife


                                           Refuge Association,

                                                   March 16, 1995.
       Dear Senator: The National Wildlife Refuge Association 
     opposes the Stevens amendment to S. 219, the pending 
     regulatory moratorium legislation. This amendment, if 
     enacted, will ensure that incompatible uses on refuges 
     continue unchecked resulting in the needless loss and 
     harassment of wildlife and, in some cases, that refuge 
     visitor safety is compromised. Following are examples of 
     scenarios that can be expected System-wide if the Stevens 
     amendment is enacted:
       Red Rock Lakes NWR (MT): For approximately two weeks in the 
     autumn migratory bird and big game hunting seasons overlap on 
     the Refuge. A popular site for big game hunting is a large 
     clearing that lies between a lake and an access road where 
     elk frequently browse without the benefit of cover. Under 
     current regulations hunters are permitted to shoot at big 
     game in the clearing once out of their vehicles and off the 
     road. Naturally, not all shots connect with their targets 
     and, in the case of more powerful rifles, can conceivably 
     reach the lake. But during the time of season overlap, duck 
     hunters can be found along the edge of the lake. Because of 
     the potential safety hazards, the refuge manager intends to 
     alter hunting patterns during the overlap. The Stevens 
     amendment will make it impossible for the refuge manager to 
     rectify this dangerous situation.
       Chincoteague NWR (VA), E.B. Forsythe NWR (NJ): While beach-
     oriented recreational activities are permitted approximately 
     nine months of the year on these two refuges, the areas must 
     be closed from May through August while piping plovers nest 
     along the beach. Under the Stevens amendment, seasonal 
     closures would be prohibited and recreational activities 
     would be permitted that could seriously impact plover nesting 
     activities.
       Crystal River NWR (FL): In wintertime, Crystal River draws 
     nearly a quarter of the known manatee population because of a 
     warm spring that flows into the cooled waters. During this 
     time, the FWS closes the refuge to boating and jet-skiing in 
     an effort to help the manatees avoid being struck by boat and 
     jetski hulls, and cut by hazardous propellers. The Stevens 
     amendment would prohibit this seasonal closing, thereby 
     exposing the concentrated numbers of manatees to increased 
     hazards.
       The National Wildlife Refuge System is the only public land 
     system dedicated primarily to the conservation of wildlife. 
     In addition it also provides significant opportunities for 
     recreation including hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, 
     hiking and other wildlife-dependent activities. By enacting 
     legislation that permits incompatible commercial and 
     recreational activities to continue on our Nation's Wildlife 
     Refuges, the Congress is not only jeopardizing our valuable 
     wildlife resources but also the recreational opportunities 
     that depend on them. Please oppose the Stevens amendment to 
     S. 219.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Ginger Merchant,
     Executive Vice President.
                                                                    ____

                               National Education Association,

                                   Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the 2.2 million members of the 
     National Education Association, I strongly urge you to vote 
     against S. 219, the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995.
       S. 219 would place a moratorium on a broad range of 
     important federal regulations until December 31, 1995, and 
     retroactively freeze regulations in effect since November 9, 
     1994. If enacted, S. 219 will undermine and negate many 
     important safeguards and protections for Americans, and lead 
     to confusion and uncertainty among state and local 
     governments and employers attempting to comply with federal 
     laws.
       Among the hundreds of regulatory actions that could be 
     negated this bill are:
       Department of Labor final regulations to implement the 
     Family and Medical Leave Act, scheduled to take effect on 
     April 16.
       Department of Education guidance to states and school 
     districts on implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act;
       Regulations currently being developed by the Education 
     Department that are necessary to implement the provisions of 
     the reauthorized Elementary Secondary Education Act;
       Education Department regulations and guidance on the new 
     college student Direct Loan program, which will save the 
     federal government billions of dollars;
       Proposed OSHA standards to protect workers from harmful 
     indoor air pollutants;
       Expected FCC regulations to implement the Children's 
     Television Act; and
       Consumer Product Safety Commission protections against 
     choking hazards from toys.
       This bill would drastically curtail the ability of the 
     federal government to ensure that workers have safe 
     workplaces; that Americans have safe food, drinking water, 
     and clean air; and that children are protected from a broad 
     range of hazards. NEA again urges that you vote against final 
     passage of S. 219.
           Sincerely,
                                            Mary Elizabeth Teasly,
     Interim Director.
                                                                    ____

                                                    Physicians for


                                        Social Responsibility,

                                   Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
       Dear Senator: A proposed freeze on federal regulations (S. 
     219) and risk assessment legislation (S. 343) would 
     effectively paralyze our national ability to protect the 
     public health. So concludes one of America's leading 
     pediatric and environmental medicine experts, Philip J. 
     Landrigan, M.D., who testified on the severe public health 
     impact of comparable legislation in the House. This 
     legislation would sabotage America's ability to contain 
     deadly, emerging threats such as cryptosporidium in drinking 
     water and particulate air pollution. Public health impacts 
     are critical in evaluating the merits of freezing federal 
     regulations or requiring costly, cumbersome new risk 
     assessments, far in excess of those already used by 
     government agencies. Listed below are just a few reasons why 
     S. 219 and 343 would undermine public health in America and 
     should be rejected:
       A freeze and endless studies would grind public health 
     agencies to a halt ``[E]normously cumbersome and 
     extraordinarily bureaucratic requirements imposed on the 
     regulatory process in the name of government simplification 
     will seriously hinder'' the prevention of disease. (House 
     Commerce Subcommittee testimony of Philip Landrigan, M.D., 2/
     2/95, p. 1, para. 3) The goal is to save lives, not to engage 
     in unending study. (Landrigan testimony p. 7, para. 1)
       A costly new layer of bureaucracy would harm public health 
     A ``dreadful and tragic misuse of legislative power [would] 
     enshrine the false science of quantitative risk assessment as 
     the law of the land,'' creating ``a grossly obese and 
     unnecessary bureaucracy'' that would ``set the stage for 
     disease, disability and untimely death'' in America. (p. 7, 
     para. 2)
       Less gridlock saves kids; More gridlock hurts workers 
     Removing lead from gasoline is one of the most successful 
     federal efforts ever to protect children's health, saving 
     money and improving Americans' lives. But with a moratorium 
     and the detailed regulatory analysis Congress is considering, 
     we would still have lead in gasoline--and more childhood lead 
     poisoning--today. Meanwhile, additional risk assessment 
     required for an OSHA benzene standard wasted seven years and 
     may have caused nearly 500 workers to die needlessly from 
     leukemia. ``The human consequence of this insistence upon 
     quantitative tidiness has been grim.'' (p. 5, para. 6)
       Public health regulations save workers' lives and American 
     jobs Contrary to massive job loss claims, public health 
     regulations not only protect workers, but can also help save 
     American jobs by stimulating efficient, less dangerous 
     production (Testimony Addendum p. 2).
           Very truly yours,
                                               Joseph M. Schwartz,
     Associate Director for Policy.
                                                                    ____

                                                    National Parks


                                 and Conservation Association,

                                                   Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: During debate on the regulatory moratorium 
     legislation, S. 219, the Committee on Governmental Affairs 
     adopted an amendment offered by Senator Stevens to prevent 
     any regulations or rules that ``withdraw or restrict 
     recreational, subsistence, or commercial use of any federal 
     land under the control of a Federal agency.'' This 
     prohibition against rulemaking effectively eliminates the 
     abilities of the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park 
     Service (NPS), the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest 
     Service to manage federal lands for resource protection. We 
     encourage you to support efforts to eliminate this provision 
     from the bill when it is considered on the Senate floor.
       The National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA) is 
     concerned about the bill's likely impacts on management of 
     the 
     [[Page S4618]] National Park System. The NPS is not perceived 
     as a regulatory agency; yet, the NPS depends upon regulations 
     to protect the resources of our national parks. The 
     moratorium would be retroactive to November 9, 1994. Since 
     that time the NPS has issued a number of significant rules, 
     which include: recreational fishing rules for the Everglades 
     National Park that are consistent with state fishing 
     regulations, closure of high visitation areas to hunting at 
     Pictured Rocks National Seashore, protection for 
     archeological resources in all cultural and historical parks, 
     authority to eliminate most solid waste sites within park 
     boundaries, altering approved off-road vehicle areas at Cape 
     Cod National Seashore in order to protect the endangered 
     piping plover, implementing a pre-registration period for 
     mountain climbing in Denali National Park.
       NPCA does not believe any of these regulations are 
     overburdensome, nor are they stifling the productivity of the 
     country. These examples demonstrate why the Stevens amendment 
     to S. 219 overreaches.
       In addition to the efforts listed above, the NPS is working 
     on regulations that will: require greater environmental 
     compliance at oil and gas development sites within the parks; 
     limit flights over parks where noise and safety have become a 
     concern; limit fishing activities in parks where stocks are 
     becoming depleted; and put in place more stringent limits on 
     solicitation within the boundaries of national park units. 
     These are efforts to improve visitor services, ensure safety, 
     and, most importantly, protect our national heritage.
                                                                    ____

Impacts of the Regulatory Moratorium Required by the Stevens Amendment 
                               to S. 219


                         national park service

       Below are the NPS actions, notices, regulations or rules 
     that would not be implemented because of the Stevens 
     Amendment. These are not the type of actions that are 
     stalling America's business engine.

                                 Alaska

       Denali National Park and Preserve--pre-registration 
     requirements for mountain climbing and information for 
     mountaineering activities in the park.
       Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve--new regulations to 
     adjust daily number of permitted entries of vessels into the 
     bay; also rules to prohibit commercial fishing within park 
     boundaries.
       Katmai National Park--rules to determine safe distances for 
     human contact with bears in the park.
       Alaska wide--establishing regulations for subsistence 
     hunting on federal lands.

                                Arizona

       Grand Canyon National Park--issuance of general management 
     plan.
       Lake Mead National Recreation Area--implementation of 
     general management plan for Willow Beach.

                               California

       Joshua Tree National Park--notice of intent to prepare an 
     environmental impact statement for a wilderness and 
     backcountry management plan.
       Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail--issuance of 
     draft comprehensive management plan.

                                Florida

       Big Cypress National Preserve--requirement for bonding and 
     environmental compliance for all oil and gas operations 
     within the park.
       Dry Tortugas National Park--regulations to protect certain 
     locally threatened shell fish from harvest; adjustment of 
     boundary lines.
       Everglades National Park--rules to achieve consistency with 
     state fishing guidelines.
       Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve--issuance of 
     management and land protection plans.

                                 Hawaii

       Kaloko Honokohau National Historic Park--implementation of 
     general management plan for the park.

                                 Idaho

       City of Rocks National Preserve--issuance of final 
     comprehensive management plan for the park.

                               Louisiana

       Jean Lafitte National Historic Park and Preserve--temporary 
     closure to address excessive nutria population.
                                                                    ____

                                                    OMB Watch,

                                   Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
       Dear Senator: We are writing in opposition to S. 219, the 
     Regulatory Transition Act of 1995.
       The Regulatory Transition Act imposes a moratorium on 
     developing or implementing all significant regulatory actions 
     from November 9, 1994 to December 31, 1995. The moratorium 
     also suspends court order deadlines to carry out significant 
     regulatory actions.
       The regulatory moratorium is a blunt instrument that has 
     little to do with regulatory reforms and, in fact, the 
     moratorium is a threat to public protections and must be 
     opposed. Every poll, including those of exiting voters last 
     November, shows an electorate that wants stronger federal 
     protections for our environment and our health and safety. 
     The moratorium would directly undermine that objective.
       The proposed bill will have unintended consequences and 
     proposals to exempt certain activities is not a solution to 
     making the bill workable. Thus, the concept of a moratorium 
     is fundamentally flawed.
       The proposed bill also raises serious constitutional 
     concerns by prohibiting the executive branch from 
     implementing the laws of the land and prohibiting the courts 
     from enforcing regulatory adjudications. In selected cases, 
     Congress would let the executive branch implement laws but 
     not without going through a series of bureaucratic hoops. 
     This bill has enormous repercussions for the separation of 
     powers under the Constitution and will seriously limit the 
     ability of the President to faithfully execute the laws of 
     the land.
       The moratorium is a means for gutting federal laws and 
     protections. By passing this bill, Congress could undo the 
     implementation of many laws. Conservative Republicans are 
     using the moratorium as a vehicle to stop federal protections 
     until such time as they can pass other laws to dismantle 
     these protections. They have listed laws that they want to 
     rewrite such as the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air and 
     Water Acts, Occupational Safety and Health Act, Truth in 
     Lending Act, and the Community Reinvestment Act.
       The effect of this legislation would be to essentially shut 
     government down. This was not the intent of the voters in 
     November. The public wants to streamline government and to 
     make it work more efficiently. But the public also wants 
     improved protections and safeguards. It does not want to 
     throw the baby out with the bath water--which will be the 
     results of a regulatory moratorium.
       The moratorium has enormous consequences yet there has been 
     virtually no debate on the proposed bill. The public has a 
     right to know about what Congress is planning and a right to 
     publicly debate these plans. Let's not resort to backhanded 
     approaches, such as the regulatory moratorium, to achieve 
     outcomes that may be inconsistent with popular sentiment.
       We urge you to vote against S. 219, the Regulatory 
     Transition Act of 1995.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Gary D. Bass,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                           Religious Action Center


                                            of Reform Judaism,

                                                 March 16, 1996.  
       Dear Senator: On behalf of The Commission on Social Action 
     of Reform Judaism and the Central Conference of American 
     Rabbis, I urge you to oppose S. 219, The Regulatory 
     Moratorium. If passed, this bill will jeopardize the 
     protection of our food and drinking water, worker health and 
     safety, civil rights, motor vehicle safety, and the well 
     being of our children.
       This bill and others like it are part of a systematic 
     attack against government regulation. Although stemming from 
     legitimate concerns about bureaucracy and regulatory 
     entanglements, they respond to these concerns with a cure 
     that is worse than the illness. These anti-regulatory 
     measures go far beyond an attempt to make government more 
     responsive and efficient--they threaten the ability of 
     government to fulfill its primary mission: protection of the 
     common good.
       This moratorium is extremely far reaching, severely 
     constraining the regulatory abilities of the FDA, EPA, FAA, 
     USDA, DoE, FEC, INS, FCC, and the Transportation, Labor, 
     Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development 
     Departments. In addition, rather than eliminating 
     bureaucracy, this bill will create a new form of delay. For 
     these reasons, a coalition of over 200 national public 
     interest groups has asked the Senate to rethink S. 219 
     carefully and preserve public health and safety protections.
       The last election showed great public concern over the size 
     and efficacy of the government. However, this should not be 
     seen as a desire to weaken environmental health and safety 
     standards. The latest Times-Mirror poll says that 82% of the 
     public wants such standards to become stricter. Congress must 
     not jeopardize our health and safety in a hasty attempt to 
     address the problems of the federal government. S. 219 will 
     have just this effect.
       The ``Regulatory Moratorium'' begins the process of 
     dismantling the federal government. The moratorium will 
     prevent federal agencies from taking actions necessary to 
     protect the public. S. 219 would suspend all final 
     regulations approved by any government agency since November 
     9, 1994 and prohibit any work on new regulations until 
     December 31, 1995.

                           *   *   *   *   *

                                                                    ____

                                  National Safe Kids Campaign,

                                   Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
       Dear Senator: I am writing to you, on behalf of the 
     National Safe Kids Campaign, to express our serious concerns 
     regarding S. 219, the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995. We 
     believe this bill jeopardizes regulations that will protect 
     our children from preventable injuries--the number one killer 
     of children ages 14 and under.
       Each year, unintentional injuries kill nearly 7,200 
     children and leave 50,000 disabled. Not only is there a 
     staggering emotional toll to childhood injury, but there is a 
     monetary toll as well--unintentional injuries cost society 
     $13.8 billion annually.
       Fortunately, prevention saves lives and money. One dollar 
     spent on a bike helmet saves society $30; one dollar spent on 
     a child 
     [[Page S4619]] safety seat saves society $32; one dollar 
     invested in a poison control center saves society almost $8; 
     one dollar spent on a smoke detector saves society between 
     $44 and $70. However, prevention fails when safety products 
     are defective.
       A fundamental component of successful injury prevention is 
     the sensible regulation of certain consumer products which 
     pose a danger to children. However, S. 219 would undermine 
     the progress being made towards the safe and sensible 
     regulation of products which could harm children.
       Specifically, the President is given too much discretion 
     under Section 5(2)(A) to determine whether a regulatory 
     action should be exempted because there is an ``imminent 
     threat to human health or safety.'' The intent of this 
     provision is vague and will result in an additional, 
     unnecessary bureaucratic layer. This provision flies in the 
     face of the intent of the bill--to streamline the regulatory 
     process. Indeed, Section 5(2)(A) could easily delay or stop 
     important regulatory activity that could save children's 
     lives.
       S. 219 could result in needless injuries and deaths to 
     children. Responsible regulations such as the children's 
     safety regulations currently under consideration save lives 
     and dollars. These activities and others like them should 
     move forward. Prevention-related regulations which save lives 
     and dollars include:
       Requirements for child-resistant packaging for certain 
     household products and medications.
       There were 1.2 million reported poison exposures among 
     children ages 12 and under in 1992. The primary source of 
     poisonings were cosmetics, personal care items and cleaning 
     products. Final rules are currently being developed for 
     packaging standards for several household products and 
     prescription drugs.
       Safety standards for bicycle helmets to ensure that all 
     helmets sold meet certain accepted effectiveness criteria. 
     Each year, approximately 300 children ages 14 and under are 
     killed in bicycle-related incidents--often as a result of 
     head trauma. Currently, helmets may be sold which do not 
     provide adequate protection against head trauma. At the 
     express direction of Congress, a standard for bicycle helmets 
     drawing from existing voluntary standards is currently being 
     developed.
       Performance standards for baby walkers. In 1993 alone, 
     25,000 children required emergency room treatment due to the 
     use of baby walkers. The Consumer Product Safety Commission 
     (CPSC) is currently working on a Notice of Proposed Rule 
     making to develop design or performance requirements for baby 
     walkers.
       Toy labeling and choking reporting regulations. In 1992, 
     there were 142,700 toy-related injuries to children ages 14 
     and under. The Child Safety Protection Act of 1994 required 
     the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue rules banning 
     certain small toys, establishing standards for toy labels 
     identifying choking hazards, and requiring the reporting of 
     choking incidents related to toys. The CPSC approved the 
     final rules in February, 1995.
       Flammability Standard for Upholstered Furniture. Each year, 
     approximately 1,000 children ages 14 and under die in 
     residential fires. More than 60 percent of these children are 
     ages 4 and under. Playing with matches and lighters is the 
     leading cause of fire deaths and injuries in young children. 
     A substantial proportion of fires are associated with the 
     flame ignition of upholstered furniture. A proposed 
     flammability standard currently is being developed by the 
     CPSC.
       The National SAFE KIDS Campaign is the first and only 
     nationwide campaign solely dedicated to the prevention of 
     unintentional childhood injuries. The Campaign with its more 
     than 170 State and Local Coalitions, through community-based 
     programs that provide education, promote environmental and 
     product modifications, and support appropriate public policy. 
     On behalf of the Campaign, our Chair, Dr. C. Everett Koop, 
     M.D., and the children whose lives are saved daily through 
     sensible regulations, I ask that you oppose the regulatory 
     moratorium proposed in S. 219.
           Sincerely,
                                              Heather Paul, Ph.D.,
                                             Executive Director.  
                                             The Humane Society of


                                            the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of The Humane Society of the United 
     States (HSUS), the largest animal protection organization in 
     the country with over 2.3 million members and constituents, I 
     am writing to urge you to oppose S. 219, the Regulatory 
     Transition Act of 1995. This bill will irreparably harm 
     efforts to protect the public and the environment on which we 
     depend, including endangered species, our public lands, and 
     animal protection efforts generally. The public at large will 
     also be harmed, through paralysis of government oversight of 
     food safety, safe drinking water, worker health and safety, 
     civil rights, and other critical areas.
       The HSUS is gravely concerned about the breadth and scope 
     of attacks against environmental and animal protection 
     regulations in general. Federal regulations have provided 
     effective protection for endangered wildlife and wild lands, 
     nourishing the American spirit while supporting a strong 
     economy and a healthy environment. Without these protections 
     American would not be able to enjoy the wonders of national 
     parks or the mysteries of wild animals such as bison and bald 
     eagles.
       S. 219 would jeopardize some of the most critical wildlife 
     and animal protection laws. Regulations under the Wild Bird 
     Conservation Act and the newly reauthorized Marine Mammal 
     Protection Act would be stopped, leaving large numbers of 
     wild populations vulnerable to continued depletion. Decisions 
     on listing endangered species, already backlogged from years 
     of inaction, would be delayed, further limiting the options 
     for finding creative and economically viable paths toward 
     preventing extinctions.
       The American people did not vote last November to eliminate 
     the environmental and animal protection legislation they have 
     worked so hard to put in place. Neither did they vote to 
     create an endless tangle of litigation and rule-making to be 
     funded at taxpayer expense. I urge you, then, to vote no on 
     S. 219.
           Sincerely,

                                         John W. Grady, Ph.D.,

                                                   Vice President,
     Wildlife and Habitat Protection.
                                                                    ____

                                   Women's Legal Defense Fund,

                                   Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
       Dear Senator, The Women's Legal Defense Fund urges you to 
     oppose S. 219 and S. 343. These so-called ``regulatory 
     reform'' bills would gut the enforcement of some of our most 
     important environmental, consumer, civil rights, and health 
     and safety protections.
       S. 219, the regulatory moratorium, would retroactively 
     freeze all regulations issued since November 9, 1994. This 
     bill could stop or delay the enforcement of existing rules 
     affecting:
       Mammogram quality--The moratorium would suspend regulations 
     designed to ensure minimum quality standards for breast 
     cancer screening. These regulations could mean the difference 
     between life and death for countless women; holding them up 
     in the name of reform plays games with women's lives.
       The Family and Medical Leave Act--The Department of Labor's 
     final rule implementing the FMLA would be suspended under the 
     proposed moratorium. The final rules clarify many 
     uncertainties in the law's application: employers and 
     employees should not be deprived of this guidance just as 
     they are learning their rights and responsibilities under 
     this new law.
       Child support--Rules to improve paternity establishment 
     would be suspended. At a time when Congress is working to 
     strengthen child support enforcement, delaying the 
     implementation of these rules would be counterproductive.
       S. 343 threatens to dismantle the federal government's 
     ability to protect us, our children, and our environment by 
     bringing the rulemaking process to a grinding halt. Agencies 
     would be required to perform time-consuming risk assessment 
     and cost-benefit analyses, not only on proposed new 
     regulations, but also on any existing ``major'' regulation 
     that is challenged. And costs of implementation would be the 
     paramount concern, not the health and safety of American 
     workers and their children.
       If enacted, S. 219 and S. 343 would have a truly 
     devastating effect on women and their families. Please vote 
     against these draconian measures.
           Sincerely,
                                               Judith L. Lichtman,
     President.
                                                                    ____

         International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & 
           Agricultural Implement Workers of America--UAW,
                                   Washington, DC, March 13, 1995.
       Dear Senator: This week the Senate is expected to take up 
     the proposed regulatory moratorium bill (S. 219). The UAW 
     strongly opposes this proposal that threatens to weaken or 
     eliminate hundreds of safeguards that now protect families 
     and children in their homes, workplaces and communities. We 
     urge you to vote against S. 219 when it comes to the Senate 
     floor.
       This legislation would have far-reaching consequences for 
     the way the federal government carries out its 
     responsibilities to safeguard public health, the environment 
     and workplace safety. The moratorium bill would stop the 
     issuance of most new federal regulations, retroactive to 
     November 9, 1994. This moratorium would remain in place 
     through the end of 1995, or until Congress approves a 
     comprehensive overhaul of federal safeguards. The bill would 
     effect regulations that are expected to have an annual impact 
     on the economy of $100 million or more. This is an arbitrary 
     threshold that makes no distinction between good or bad 
     regulations.
       A number of key amendments that would have improved S. 219 
     were rejected by narrow margins in the Senate Governmental 
     Affairs Committee. The UAW was disappointed that an attempt 
     to exempt worker safety and health protections from the 
     moratorium was defeated on a tie vote. In addition, other 
     amendments to exempt food safety programs, toxic waste 
     disposal and safe drinking water protections were defeated as 
     well. Although powerful timber and grazing industries and 
     other special interests were able to obtain exemptions from 
     the regulatory moratorium, few exemptions were provided for 
     regulations that deal with safeguards for ordinary citizens. 
     Thus, the net effect of S.219 would be to stop regulations 
     that deal with 
     [[Page S4620]] workplace health and safety, such as the 
     proposed ergonomics standard, worker protections like the 
     Family and Medical Leave Act, and public health measures such 
     as regulations dealing with food poisoning.
       For these reasons, the UAW is strongly opposed to S. 219. 
     In our judgment, this measure would undermine the ability of 
     the federal government to play a positive role in 
     safeguarding the health and safety of our children, our 
     families, our workplaces, and our communities. We urge you to 
     vote against S. 219 when the Senate takes up the legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Alan Reuther,
                                             Legislative Director.
                                               Public Citizen,

                                   Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
       Dear Senator: Sometime in the next week, you will be asked 
     to vote against public health and safety. The Senate may vote 
     on S. 219, the Regulatory Transition Act, a regulatory 
     moratorium which slams the door on government efforts to 
     protect American people. The Senate may also consider a bill 
     to give Congress a veto power over regulations, a provision 
     which will inappropriately bring enforcement of laws back 
     into the political arena.
       On behalf of Public Citizen and its members, I urge you to 
     oppose these attacks on public health and safety.
       The regulatory moratorium is a crude, poorly understood, 
     meat-axe approach to an extremely complicated issue. The 
     moratorium will disrupt thousands of pending programs, 
     including efforts to upgrade archaic meat inspection systems. 
     American children are already dying from E. Coli 
     contamination of their food--contamination which could be 
     prevented. American children will continue to die as a result 
     of further delay on these types of safeguards.
       The regulatory moratorium would override statutory mandates 
     which Americans support, without the scrutiny of public 
     debate. Polls show that Americans want stronger federal 
     protection for public health and safety. If Congress wants to 
     repeal the Clean Air Act, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or 
     the Occupational Safety and Health Act, they should debate 
     the substance of those statutes, rather than attack the 
     regulatory system on which these protections are built.
       The regulatory moratorium would be costly to taxpayers and 
     to business. Taxpayer money would be wasted while federal 
     agencies charged with implementing laws passed by Congress 
     are stopped in their tracks. Delays in regulations effecting 
     planning cycles will add to business costs.
       Special business interests have been able to win exemptions 
     for regulations that will help line their pocket books. But 
     the American public has not been able to get a special 
     exemption for government safeguards that will protect our 
     very lives.
                            Natural Resources Defense Council,

                                   Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the Natural Resources Defense 
     Council, a national membership organization dedicated to the 
     protection of public health and the environment, I urge you 
     to vote No on the regulatory moratorium (S. 219) and 
     regulatory reform bills now pending before the Senate. These 
     bills would place polluters before the public and undermine 
     25 years of bipartisan environmental success.
       Regulatory Moratorium. S. 219 would block new rules aimed 
     at protecting the public and streamlining government. For 
     example, the bill would bar the regulation of 
     cryptosporidium, the parasite that contaminated Milwaukee's 
     drinking water, sickening 400,000 and killing more than 100 
     people. A moratorium on new rules is the wrong tool to 
     identify and fix defects in existing rules.
       Nor is the solution a proposal now being considered as an 
     alternative to a regulatory moratorium--a 45-day delay in 
     issuing rules pending Congressional review. Every rule will 
     have its special interests pounding the pavement on Capitol 
     Hill to stop it, diverting limited Congressional resources 
     from more pressing matters.
       I also urge you to oppose efforts to expand any moratorium 
     to actions other than rulemakings. Amendments like that 
     offered by Senator Stevens in the Government Affairs 
     Committee preventing any action that ``restricts 
     recreational, subsistence, or commercial use of any land 
     under the control of a Federal agency'' will bring to a halt 
     efforts to preserve our public lands for future generations. 
     Restricting actions to enforce existing limitations on the 
     use of public lands will penalize law-abiding citizens who 
     have been good stewards of our federal lands.
                                     American Oceans Campaign,

                                   Washington, DC, March 15, 1995.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: American Oceans Campaign is a national, non-
     partisan organization working to protect our world's oceans 
     and marine environment. We strongly urge you to Vote No on S. 
     219, the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995.
       This bill will have devastating effects on our nation's 
     fisheries, coastal programs, and rules to ensure public 
     health and safety, such as protections in the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act and Clean Water Act. Even negotiated rules agreed 
     to by all parties to address disinfection by-products and 
     cryptosporidium in drinking water would be halted. Such 
     safeguards are critical to protecting the public from known 
     carcinogens and dangerous pathogens in drinking water 
     supplies across the country.
       American Oceans Campaign strongly opposes S. 219. Uniform 
     federal protections and safeguards are necessary to ensure 
     public health and conserve our precious natural resources. 
     Government reform is essential, but public and environmental 
     protections should not be eviscerated in the process. S. 219 
     uses a sledgehammer where a surgeon's scalpel is needed. Any 
     revisions should be made on a case by case basis, not in an 
     ad hoc fashion. We are available to assist you in this 
     endeavor, as we support common sense initiatives like ending 
     subsidies to polluters and encouraging pollution prevention 
     programs.
       In poll after poll, American voters overwhelmingly support 
     strengthening federal standards for environmental and public 
     health protection. As public servants, it is incumbent on 
     Congress to craft the most responsible policy for the nation. 
     S. 219 is not responsible legislation. We urge you to resist 
     any temptation to pass this or any bill which threatens 
     protections for the American people and the air we breathe, 
     water we drink, and land on which we live.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Ted Danson,
                                                        President.
            Campaign for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water


                   two good reasons to oppose s. 219

       1. Urgently needed protections to control the deadly bug 
     cryptospordium and cancer-causing chlorine by-products would 
     be stopped.
       The Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA], last amended in 1986, 
     does not include regulations on cryptospordium, the protozoa 
     from animal wastes that caused 400,000 people to become ill 
     and over 100 to die in Milwaukee in 1993. Cryptospordium, 
     giardia and other bacteria contribute largely to the nearly 
     one million people that the Centers for Disease Control 
     estimate are made ill from their drinking water each year. A 
     recent report documented 116 water-borne disease outbreaks in 
     the U.S. 1986-1994. Due to chronic under-reporting, this is 
     just the tip of the iceberg.
       Many people are at higher risk to serious illness or even 
     death from cryptospordium and giardia, including infants and 
     children, pregnant women, people with AIDS and the elderly.
       The SDWA also fails to adequately control dangerous by-
     products of chlorine and similar disinfectants. These 
     disinfection by-products (DBPs) are found in the drinking 
     water of over 100 million people. A recent study by doctors 
     from Harvard and Wisconsin found that DBPs may be responsible 
     for 10,700 or more rectal and bladder cancers per year. 
     Doctors from the Public Health Service found that certain 
     birth defects are significantly associated with DBPs. EPA has 
     found that DBPs can also cause liver and kidney damage.
       2. S. 219 hijacks the political process
       Responding to the new scientific and public health data 
     documenting these real and immediate public health threats, 
     the EPA convened a ``negotiating team'' to develop 
     reasonable, cost-effective solutions. Representative from all 
     sides of the debate on providing safe drinking water were 
     included in this negotiation process--public water systems, 
     state and local health agencies, consumer groups, state and 
     local governments and environmental organizations.
       This team agreed to develop modest controls of DBPs and 
     microbial contaminants, to gather more information and 
     research and to continue negotiations after gathering this 
     information. The drafting of the rules controlling 
     cryptospordium and DBPs was a ground-breaking effort to 
     include all parties in the decision making process.
       This carefully constructed agreement, balancing public 
     health risks and costs, would be thrown out the window by S. 
     219. In a rush to score political points, S. 219 would delay 
     these urgently needed standards, leaving the public exposed 
     to health threats which have already caused tremendous pain 
     and suffering.
                           American Public Health Association,

                                   Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
       Dear Senator: The American Public Health Association 
     representing over 50,000 health professionals and community 
     health leaders along with its 52 state affiliated 
     organizations opposes S. 219, Regulatory Transition Act. The 
     bill would create a moratorium on the development or 
     implementation of any new federal regulation until the end of 
     1995.
       APHA believes that this legislation and other cost benefit 
     and risk assessment proposals (as currently drafted) present 
     a threat to human health and safety. Important contributions 
     have been made over the past few decades to the nation's 
     public health and its environment by the enactment of 
     reasonable and scientifically based legislation. This bill 
     will halt substantial progress on a number of important 
     initiatives on tobacco, food safety and workplace hazards.
       We urge you and your colleagues in the Senate to oppose 
     this legislation and other attempts to limit the ability of 
     federal agencies to safe lives and prevent injuries.
           Sincerely,
                                    Fernando M. Trevino, PhD, MPH,
                                               Executive Director.
                               Center for Marine Conservation,

                                   Washington, DC, March 15, 1995.
       Dear Senator: The Center for Marine Conservation and its 
     125,000 members urge you to oppose S. 219 when it reaches the 
     Senate 
     [[Page S4621]] floor. The bill imposes a moratorium on the 
     development and implementation of all federal regulations 
     from November 9, 1994 through December 31, 1995, even 
     regulations mandated by court order. The moratorium falls 
     particularly hard on the environment:
       1. The commercial fishing industry would be severely 
     affected if you halt regulations allocating allowable 
     harvests and bycatch limits in the New England and Alaskan 
     groundfish fisheries, and limiting access to certain other 
     federal fisheries.
       2. Regulations authorizing the nonlethal deterrence of 
     marine mammals would be blocked, exposing fishermen to 
     prosecution under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
       3. Regulations establishing a plan to manage the Florida 
     Keys Marine Sanctuary designated by Congress in 1992 would be 
     blocked, delaying the protection of the Keys fragile marine 
     resources so essential to the local economy.
       4. All listings and critical habitat designations under the 
     Endangered Species Act--regardless how imminent the 
     extinctions--would be halted and certain species with 
     listings pending, like Pacific salmon and steelhead trout, 
     could become extinct.
       The moratorium would stop roughly 900 regulations, many of 
     them meritorious and important actions ordered by Congress. 
     Examples include pending regulations to foster competition in 
     the electric power industry, regulations to provide for 
     safety in nuclear facilities, and renewable energy 
     incentives. This blunderbuss approach to government policy-
     making should not be condoned. Even regulations that protect 
     the public against ``imminent threat to human health or 
     safety or other emergency'' would be delayed while they 
     undergo prolonged review within the OMB.
       To prevent unintended results, such as the cancelling of 
     the duck hunting season, the House adopted a series of 
     exceptions. Exceptions for good regulations turns government 
     on its head; it is the bad regulations that need to be 
     addressed. If certain regulations impose undue burdens, as 
     some do, they should be carefully judged on their individual 
     merits. Carving out exceptions to the moratorium on an ad hoc 
     basis can never replace a thoughtful legislative process, 
     with full opportunity for public debate and legislative 
     hearings.
       We urge you to reject this dangerous and ill-conceived 
     proposal, and oppose S. 219 when it is considered on the 
     Senate floor.
           Very truly yours,
                                                 Roger E. McManus,
     President.
                                                                    ____



                                     National Audubon Society,

                                   Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
       Dear Senator: I am writing to express the opposition of the 
     National Audubon Society to S. 219, the ``Regulatory 
     Transition Act of 1995.'' The regulatory moratorium embodied 
     in S. 219 would have serious unintended consequences that 
     would harm public health and the environment by delaying 
     important rules and creating chaos and confusion in the 
     regulatory process.
       Because of our long-standing interest in the protection of 
     public lands, the National Audubon Society opposes the 
     Stevens Amendment to S. 219. This proposal would prohibit the 
     federal government from taking almost any regulatory action 
     that restricts ``recreational, subsistence or commercial 
     uses'' on public lands. Such regulations would qualify as 
     ``significant,'' according to this amendment, and thus would 
     be frozen under the moratorium. If this legislation passes, 
     federal agencies would be unable to manage an enormous 
     variety of mining activities, logging, off-rode vehicle use, 
     development of oil, gas and geothermal leases, and other uses 
     of public lands, all of which may cause serious harm to the 
     nation's natural resources.
       Finally, Audubon also opposes any attempts to substitute an 
     ``alternative'' moratorium for S. 219, including a potential 
     proposal to institute a 45-day period in which Congress may 
     disapprove new regulations. Such a bill would allow special 
     interests who oppose a regulation an opportunity to defeat 
     the rule while it is being reviewed.
       On behalf of the 550,000 members of the National Audubon 
     Society, I urge you to oppose S. 219, the regulatory 
     moratorium bill, in the interest of protecting our public 
     lands, the environment and public health and safety.
           Sincerely,
                                           Elizabeth Raisbeck,

                                         Senior Vice President for
     Regional and Government Affairs.
                                                                    ____

                                              Association of State


                             and Territorial Health Officials,

                                   Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the Association of State and 
     Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO), which represents the 
     public health departments in each state and U.S. territory, I 
     am writing to express our serious concerns with S.219, the 
     proposed regulatory moratorium to be considered by the Senate 
     within the next few days.
       ASTHO applauds many senators' earnest efforts to streamline 
     the federal bureaucracy. State agencies are very familiar 
     with the burdens necessitated by collaboration with the 
     federal government. However, state health officers have 
     serious concerns with the substance of S. 219.
       The bill makes absolutely no distinction between overly 
     burdensome regulations and those which are necessary to 
     improve the public's health. In fact, members of the 
     Government Affairs Committee acknowledged that certain 
     regulations deserved exemptions from the moratorium. Among 
     the public health-oriented regulations to be affected by the 
     moratorium are the following:
       Food safety: federal safeguards against food poisoning 
     requiring increased sanitation in food processing.
       Safe mammograms: uniform quality standards for mammograms 
     enforced by an inspection and certification program.
       Child labor: strengthening provisions so that a job may not 
     interfere with a child's schooling, health or well-being.
       Drunk driving prevention: Establishes criteria for grants 
     to support states that impose stricter drunk driving rules 
     for underage drinkers.
       Safe drinking water: a final rule to require drinking water 
     supplies to be tested for cryptosporidium, a life-threatening 
     parasite which sickened 400,000 people in the Milwaukee area 
     recently.
       Although the moratorium exempts regulations that would pose 
     an ``imminent health or safety danger'', this exception is 
     meaningless without a clear definition that includes ongoing 
     public health concerns, regardless of ``immanence.'' (Revised 
     language in section 5 might read: an exemption is granted to 
     a regulatory action if it is necessary because of ``the 
     reasonable expectation of endangerment of the public's 
     health'' or safety or other emergency . . .)
       We urge you to contact your state health department before 
     voting on this bill. In their unique role as the entity 
     statutorily responsible for the health of the population, 
     they can give you an accurate perception of how the 
     moratorium will affect your state's public health efforts.
       ASTHO's position is that this regulatory reform effort 
     requires more scrutiny before passage. Thank you for your 
     consideration.
       Sincerely,
                                             Christopher Atchison,
         Director, Iowa Department of Public Health and President, 
           Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.
                                                                    ____



                                        Defenders of Wildlife,

                                    Washington, DC, Mar. 16, 1995.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of Defenders of Wildlife's over 
     100,000 members, I am writing to urge that you oppose S. 219, 
     the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995.
       As you know, this legislation would impose a fourteen-month 
     moratorium on federal regulations and virtually all actions 
     taken to restrict commercial, recreational and subsistence 
     uses on public lands. S. 219 is a blunt instrument that would 
     stop implementation of a broad range of new rules needed to 
     protect public health, the environment and wildlife. The bill 
     would also open our national parks, forests and refuges to 
     commercial exploitation and recreational excesses that could 
     have long-lasting impacts for wildlife and their habitats.
       The Stevens amendment, added to S. 219 during consideration 
     by the Governmental Affairs Committee, would have especially 
     serious consequences for wildlife. Under this provision, 
     federal agencies would be prohibited from taking virtually 
     any action to restrict ``recreational, subsistence, or 
     commercial'' activities on the public lands. This provision 
     would have broad national impacts including:
       Hindering federal land managers from taking quick action to 
     protect the public from fires, floods and other disasters 
     through the imposition of road closures and other access 
     restrictions (before making each closure order, a 
     Presidential exemption would be required);
       Precluding the National Park Service from regulating 
     activities that might impair visitor enjoyment or harm 
     wildlife such as altering approved off-road vehicle areas at 
     Massachusetts' Cape Cod National Seashore to protect the 
     endangered piping plover;
       Precluding the Fish and Wildlife Service from regulating 
     recreational activities on national wildlife refuges (an 
     action which could force refuge managers not to allow an 
     activity at all) such as regulating boating and jet-skiing to 
     protect endangered manatees at Florida's Crystal River 
     National Wildlife Refuge;
       Precluding the Forest Service from balancing resource 
     values and uses as mandated under the National Forest 
     Management Act such as in the agency's efforts to maintain 
     viable wildlife populations in Alaska's Tongass National 
     Forest, the nation's largest national forest, through the 
     establishment of habitat conservation areas.

                           *   *   *   *   *

                      United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC,
                                    Washington DC, March 15, 1995.
       Dear Senator: The Senate may soon consider S. 219, The 
     Regulatory Moratorium Bill.
       While the Committee approved several limited modifications 
     to the moratorium (i.e., any regulation dealing with ``an 
     imminent threat to human health and safety or other 
     emergency''), this legislation itself is an imminent threat 
     to the health, safety, and well-being of millions of 
     Americans who depend upon their Federal government to protect 
     the quality of the food they eat, the water they drink, the 
     medicines they take, and the health and safety of the places 
     where they work.
       What possible purpose can such a moratorium accomplish? Is 
     there some special value to arbitrarily stopping Federal 
     agencies from issuing regulations for 9\1/2\ months? Or 
     [[Page S4622]] is this legislation the first step in 
     undermining the organic laws which protect Americans from 
     risks which they cannot control themselves?
       It has become increasingly apparent in recent weeks with 
     the passage of legislation on so-called unfunded mandates, 
     paperwork reduction, regulatory reform, and private property 
     rights that the real agenda of many in Congress is not to 
     make government more efficient or effective, but inoperative. 
     It would simply stop government from regulating at all 
     wherever and whenever possible. The regulatory moratorium is 
     only the latest legislative vehicle for accomplishing this 
     political objective.

                           *   *   *   *   *



          Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC,

                                    Washington, DC, March 9, 1995.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the Service Employees 
     International Union's 1.1 million members, I urge you to 
     oppose S. 219--the Regulatory Moratorium. This legislative 
     proposal will not, as its proponents claim, ``reform 
     government,'' Instead, S. 219 will bring much of government 
     to a grinding halt and prevent important safeguards and 
     protections from being instituted.
       SEIU is particularly concerned about the impact this 
     moratorium will have on our members' safety and health in 
     their workplaces. In the service and public sectors, where 
     our members work, the rates of injuries and illnesses are 
     continuing to increase with no adequate safeguards. For 
     instance, in our nation's nursing homes, the rate of worker 
     injuries now exceeds that for construction workers, having 
     doubled in the last ten years. Back injuries and other 
     crippling ergonomic injuries are the fastest growing type of 
     injury among American workers.
       S. 219 is designed to stop immediately the progress OSHA 
     has made for worker health and safety by issuing long awaited 
     and needed standards. For example, OSHA recently issue 
     standards to protect healthcare workers from exposure to 
     blood diseases, including HIV and hepatitis B infections. 
     With the re-emergence of tuberculosis, healthcare workers and 
     patients are now at increased risk of infection. Many workers 
     and patients are contracting and dying from diseases that are 
     resistant to current antibiotics. Workers need OSHA to issue 
     standards to ensure that they are protected from these and 
     other workplace hazards and diseases. Legislating moratoria 
     on all regulations will stymie OSHA's work to address this as 
     well as other growing health epidemics.
       SEIU believes the federal government must play a role in 
     protecting workers and their families. While we recognize the 
     need to reduce time delays and streamline lengthy processes, 
     priority. Accordingly, I urge you to oppose S. 219.
           Very truly yours,
                                                  John J. Sweeney,
                                          International President.
                             Minority Views


              1. Overview: Regulatory Reform, Not a Freeze

       The regulatory moratorium established by S. 219 would 
     suspend all significant proposed and final regulations, 
     policy statements, guidance and guidelines issued or to be 
     issued from November 9, 1994, through December 31, 1995--and 
     all statutory and judicial deadlines for such actions from 
     November 9, 1994, through May 1996. While comprehensive 
     regulatory reforms is clearly needed for the Federal 
     government, this legislation is not an appropriate or 
     necessary way to achieving such reform as its proponents 
     claim.
       S. 219 as reported by our Committee is dangerous; it does 
     not distinguish between good and bad regulations. It suspends 
     regulations designed to protect public health and safety but 
     exempts regulations solely because they may ease 
     administrative requirements. It is arbitrary and reckless. 
     Based seemingly on whim, it exempts some regulations but not 
     others even though the regulations may be comparable.
       There are indeed overly burdensome rules and regulations. 
     As the majority points out, the cumulative costs of Federal 
     regulations have risen over the past twenty years. (The 
     majority states, however, that the cost of regulations is 
     ``conservatively estimated'' at $560 billion for 1992. That 
     estimate is highly questionable and is certainly not 
     ``conservative''. A GAO review of that estimate submitted to 
     the Committee on March 8, 1995, suggests serious problems in 
     the methods used in that particular study.) Congress must be 
     sensitive to this fact. We must ensure that the laws we pass 
     meet public needs effectively and efficiently. The mounting 
     costs of regulations require that we closely examine both the 
     regulatory process and the laws that result in regulations. 
     But, we must not ignore the significant improvements that 
     regulations can bring to the daily lives of Americans. For 
     example, since the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration came into being in 1970, the workplace 
     fatality rate has dropped by over 50 percent. The Food and 
     Drug Administration has made our food and medicines safer. 
     Thanks to the work of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     our country now enjoys cleaner air and water.
       Clearly the work of government is not finished. The 
     government still has a vital role to play in protecting 
     public health and safety, ensuring equal opportunities in 
     education, employment and housing, promoting a healthy 
     economy, and protecting the environment. With diminishing 
     resources, the question becomes how we can provide these 
     services in a cost-effective way. The Congress and the 
     Executive Branch must work together to continue to improve 
     the way the government does business, and in fact several 
     initiatives are already underway--from government 
     streamlining and reengineering to regulatory reform.
       Much more is at stake, however, than merely improving 
     government processes. The regulatory moratorium legislation 
     implies that Federal agencies have simply run amok by issuing 
     too many regulations and that process controls will fix 
     everything. This is just not true. As stated in one of the 
     hearings before the Committee, perhaps 80 percent of all 
     agency rules are required by law. Agencies regulate because 
     the law requires them to do so. Thurs, while the majority 
     accurately describes the increase in regulations over the 
     last twenty years, it ignores the twenty years of legislation 
     (most signed by Republican Presidents) that led to this 
     increase in rules. While nameless ``regulations'' may be a 
     convenient whipping boy, it ignores the reality of the harder 
     task of tackling individual substantive law. This is a major 
     reason that, while the majority report suggests that there is 
     universal support for a moratorium,
      the proposal is, to the contrary, actually quite 
     controversial. More than 200 groups have opposed the 
     moratorium, including the American Heart and Lung 
     Associations, the Child Welfare League of America, the 
     Consumer Federation of America, the Epilepsy Foundation of 
     America, the Leadership Council on Civil Rights, the 
     League of Women Voters in the U.S., and the National 
     Council of Senior Citizens.
       Finally, whatever the interests of its proponents, the 
     moratorium legislation is truly unnecessary. The President 
     has required all Federal agencies to review their regulations 
     and to report back by June 1 on those which should be 
     eliminated or changed. This report will provide the 
     information we need to reform regulations and programs 
     smartly, avoiding arbitrary and potentially grave, unintended 
     consequences. In addition, there are various regulatory 
     reform initiatives underway in this and other committees to 
     strengthen our regulatory system--risk assessment, cost-
     benefit analysis, review of existing rules, centralized 
     regulatory review, and more. A moratorium does nothing toward 
     real regulatory reform.


                         2. the flaws of s. 219

       While proponents of the moratorium state that its purpose 
     is to improve efficiency and effectiveness and allow for 
     ``Congress to rationalize the regulatory reform process,'' 
     the moratorium is ironically an inefficient, ineffective, and 
     irrational approach. The moratorium will create delays in 
     good regulations, waste money, and create great uncertainty 
     for citizens, businesses, and others. The report speaks of 
     the regulatory process being ``ossified, unresponsive, and 
     inefficient.'' The moratorium will only add to that. For 
     example:
       While the moratorium purports to be a neutral ``time-out'' 
     for all significant regulatory actions, the targeted rules 
     and the variety and number of exceptions are evidence that 
     the legislation is really an example in political ``ticket 
     fixing.''
       During the Committee mark-up numerous exceptions to the 
     moratorium were accepted. Members offered twenty-two 
     amendments to S. 219. Many were to exempt specific health and 
     safety rules from the moratorium; others were to exempt broad 
     categories of regulations; two were put forth that would 
     expand the scope of the moratorium. Thirteen amendments were 
     accepted, eight rejected, and one tabled. There appeared to 
     be very little logic in what was rejected or accepted. 
     Although meat and water safety amendments were defeated, 
     others, such as exemptions related to commuter air safety, 
     railroad crossing safety, duck hunting, and lead poisoning 
     prevention, were passed. We fully supported all amendments 
     that would limit the moratorium. The inconsistency, however, 
     of the majority only heightens our concerns about the 
     legislation.
       The bill's exemption of rules that address any ``imminent 
     threat to health and safety'' is unclear and the majority 
     report's interpretation leaves unanswered many questions 
     about what would and would not be covered. The bill would 
     permit the President, upon written request by an agency head, 
     to exempt a significant regulatory action from the moratorium 
     upon a finding that the regulatory action ``is necessary 
     because of an imminent threat to human health or safety or 
     other emergency'' (sec. 5(a)(2)(A)). For certain amendments 
     in the mark-up, the majority argued that specific exemptions 
     were unnecessary because of the broad exemption authority 
     given to the President under section 5 of the legislation. 
     The majority could not, however, provide a consistent 
     interpretation of ``imminent'' or how it would be applied.
       For example, an amendment to exempt regulatory actions to
        reduce pathogens in meat poultry was rejected. This 
     amendment would address rules to update inspection 
     techniques for meat and poultry and would provide a 
     safeguard against E. Coli and other contamination. Mr. 
     Rainer Mueller, whose son died from E. Coli-contaminated 
     hamburger, testified before the Committee on February 22, 
     and poignantly described the personal tragedy and ultimate 
     price paid for 
     [[Page S4623]] unsafe food. In January, the U.S. Department 
     of Agriculture released a proposed Hazardous Analysis 
     Critical Control Point regulation to improve meat and poultry 
     inspection. This rule would mandate rigorous sanitation 
     requirements and scientific testing for bacteria in meat and 
     poultry processing. While the minority argued that E. Coli 
     was indeed a serious health threat, it would probably not be 
     considered ``imminent,'' and therefore it should be 
     specifically included as an exemption in the bill. Chairman 
     Roth stated, ``S. 219 depends on the use of common-sense 
     judgment by the President. `Imminent' is not intended to pose 
     on insurmountable obstacle. . . . We are actually empowering 
     the President to take appropriate action in such situations. 
     . . .''
       Senator Glenn also proposed an amendment to exempt actions 
     by EPA to control microbial and disinfection byproduct risks, 
     such as cryptosporidium, in drinking water supplies. 
     Cryptosporidium killed over 100 people in Milwaukee, 
     Wisconsin, and made 400,000 sick. Again, this amendment was 
     rejected, with the bill's proponents citing the Presidential 
     discretion to exempt rules that deal with imminent health and 
     safety problems.
       At the very end of the markup, however, the Committee 
     reversed this thinking by accepting an amendment to exempt 
     rules relating to lead poisoning prevention. Senator Roth 
     stated, ``I do think it fails within the exemptions [of 
     ``imminent threat''], but we are willing to accept the 
     amendment.'' This broad amendment would exclude from the 
     moratorium any action by the EPA that would protect the 
     public from exposure to lead from house paint, soil or 
     drinking water. Included in the regulations that would be 
     affected by the moratorium would be requirements that home 
     buyers and renters be informed if there are known lead 
     hazards prior to making purchases or rental decisions, and 
     that all lead abatement workers are certified to professional 
     standards of practice.
       The majority report attempts to resolve the uncertainties 
     left from the mark-up by stating that USDA's meat inspection 
     rules should be exempted ``so long as there are no 
     accompanying extraneous requirements or arbitrary rules''. We 
     are at a loss to understand the meaning of that condition. 
     The report also states that ``this Committee does not intend 
     this exemption area to apply to OSHA's regulations 
     prescribing ergonomic protection standards,'' but that the 
     Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms rule on alcoholic 
     beverage container recall information ``could be excluded 
     from the moratorium under this provision.'' The minority is 
     simply at a loss to understand the majority's logic, or the 
     legislative record on which to base such findings.
       The Committee's treatment of these regulations and the 
     ``imminent threat'' exemption leaves a completely 
     inconsistent record. And despite the majority's suggestion, 
     ``imminent'' will not cover most important health and safety 
     rules. The statutory language refers to ``imminent threat to 
     human health or safety or other emergency '' (emphasis 
     added). Moreover, the definition of ``imminent'' is ``likely 
     to occur at any moment, impending; threateningly or 
     menacingly near or at hand.'' Most health and safety rules, 
     while designed to addressed pressing problems, simply can not 
     be described as emergency rules in any common understanding 
     of the term.
       What deserves to be exempted ``just in case'' and what does 
     not? There was much discussion on the intent of the 
     moratorium, and what some of the unintended consequences 
     might be. Clearly
      the Committee decided that rules related to public health 
     (e.g., meat and poultry inspections, drinking water 
     safety) did not need to be specifically exempted ``just in 
     case'' they were not exempted under other provisions in 
     the bill. Others, including some that had potential to be 
     exempted through other language in the bill, were 
     nonetheless included as specific amendments. For example, 
     the Committee accepted an amendment to exempt any 
     regulatory action to provide compensation to Persian Gulf 
     War Veterans for disability from undiagnosed illnesses. 
     While some on the majority argued that the rule to allow 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide such 
     compensation would be already included under exemptions 
     for ``benefits'' or for ``military affairs,'' the 
     Committee decided to vote in favor of this amendment 
     ``just in case.''
       The Committee also accepted an amendment that would exempt 
     agency action that ``establishes, modifies, opens, closes, or 
     conducts a regulatory program for a commercial, recreational, 
     or subsistence activity relating to hunting, fishing, or 
     camping.'' This amendment would ensure that duck-hunting 
     season would not be affected by the moratorium. Senator 
     Cochran stated, ``The point of the moratorium was never to 
     interfere with this kind of regulation. . . . [T]he word gets 
     all over the country that this legislation is going to have 
     this unintended consequence. So the point of the amendment is 
     to make certain that nobody can misunderstand this.''
       In addition, the Committee decided to accept an amendment 
     that would exempt from the moratorium any clarification by 
     the Department of Transportation of existing responsibilities 
     regarding highway safety warning devices. The intent of this 
     amendment is to clarify state and local authority for 
     determining whether a railroad crossing device is necessary 
     and the installation of such a device. The Committee also 
     accepted amendments related aircraft safety, commuter plane 
     safety, and aircraft flights over national parks.
       As stated earlier, other health and safety amendments were 
     rejected, even though it is not at all clear that they will 
     fall under the exemption for ``imminent'' health and safety 
     threats. For example, an amendment to exempt rules relating 
     to safe disposal of nuclear waste and to decontamination and 
     decomissioning standards for NRC-licensed facilities was not 
     accepted. The Chairman argued that this would qualify as an 
     ``imminent threat'' and would therefore not be needed. 
     However, it is difficult to argue that some waste, which has 
     been sitting in temporary storage for decades, now presents 
     an ``imminent'' hazard, or that standards for decontaminating 
     or decommissioning NRC-licensed sites, which have been under 
     development for some time, now fall under an ``imminent'' 
     exemption.
       The Committee accepted as amendment to exempt any actions 
     to establish or enforce rights that prohibit discrimination 
     on the basis of race, religion, sex, age, national origin, or 
     handicapped or disability status. Directly after accepting 
     this amendment, the Committee voted to table an amendment 
     that would have exempted any actions to enforce the 
     constitutional rights of individuals, on the grounds that 
     there was ``a certain amount of ambiguity.'' These amendments 
     are similar to ones included by the Committee in the unfunded 
     mandates legislation. As Senator Levin stated, ``This is a 
     lot less ambiguous than [other amendments adopted by the 
     Committee]. These are constitutional rights, and 
     constitutional rights have been clearly defined. . . . If we 
     are going to protect statutory rights to non-discrimination, 
     . . . surely we ought to give the same protection to 
     constitutional rights that are being implemented or enforced 
     by law. . . . We should not put constitutional rights on a 
     lower level than the statutory rights.''
       The Committee accepted an amendment to exempt any rules
        under the Indian Self-Determination Act which had been the 
     product of regulatory negotiation. Yet, when Senator Levin 
     proposed an amendment to exclude all consensual 
     rulemakings, the amendment was rejected.
       In addition to the indiscriminate acceptance and rejection 
     of amendments in Committee on specific rules, the majority 
     report lists rules that are meant to be covered by the 
     moratorium. In not one instance did the Committee in any of 
     its deliberations make any finding on the merits of any of 
     these rules. There may well be good arguments for stopping 
     some or all of these rules, but that is not the point. The 
     majority is creating exemptions from specific agency 
     decisions with no legislative record.
       The juxtaposition in the majority report of these so-called 
     ``bad rules'' with what appear to be special interest ``good 
     rules'' shows how inequitable and unfair this process is. 
     There is no legislative record in the Committee to support 
     the findings, let alone discussion, of the ``good'' 
     regulations referred to in the Committee report. Consider the 
     following striking examples of rules that the majority report 
     stated should not be included in the moratorium and for which 
     the Committee has absolutely no record:
       ``final regulations governing the alteration of producer 
     recall information on containers of distilled spirits, wine 
     and beer under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act of 1935 
     (27 U.S.C. 105e)'';
       ``final regulations governing trade practices under the 
     Federal Alcohol Administration Act of 1935 (26 U.S.C. 201 et 
     seq.)'' relating to ``alcohol promotional practices'';
       ``the final rules issued by the United States Department of 
     Agriculture (and published in the Federal Register on Dec. 6, 
     1994) on meat derived from advanced separation machinery''; 
     and
       Department of Transportation ``HM-181 standards . . . for 
     open-head fibre drums used for the transportation of 
     liquids.''
       The retroactivity of the moratorium stops regulations that 
     have already been issued and creates unnecessary confusion. 
     The bill applies both prospectively and retroactively. It 
     would apply to all significant regulatory actions that 
     occurred as of November 9, 1994. Retroactively stopping rules 
     is extremely unfair to businesses and individuals who have 
     complied with the regulatory process, playing by the rules, 
     and counting on the finality of the regulations already in 
     effect. Many businesses have already spent money to comply 
     with regulations, or made investments based upon regulations 
     that have been issued. Retroactively suspending final rules 
     could give a competitive advantage to businesses that chose 
     to ignore regulations issued since November. Similarly, it is 
     unfair to companies that made investments to comply with 
     those regulations. Regulatory reform should be prospective 
     not retroactive; to do otherwise is wasteful and confusing.
       Moreover, the stated purpose of the moratorium is to stop 
     regulatory actions that may benefit from future regulatory 
     reform legislation. However no regulatory reform bill that 
     the Senate is now considering would apply retroactively. So 
     rules that are final since November 9, 1994, would not be 
     covered by the regulatory analysis requirements proposed 
     under any pending reform legislation. Thus, subjecting such 
     rules to a moratorium accomplishes nothing, except to suspend 
     the effectiveness of the rule for the period of the 
     moratorium.
       Reporting and decision requirements will completely bog 
     down
      the President. The 
     [[Page S4624]] structure that the bill uses is cumbersome and 
     one that encourages extensive lobbying throughout the life of 
     the moratorium. In order to exempt a rule, the agency head 
     must make a determination in writing that a rule meets one of 
     the exceptions and then present that determination to the 
     President who must then review it and make a determination 
     whether or not to support the agency head's recommendation. 
     If the President agrees, he must file a notice in the Federal 
     Register, stating that a rule has been exempted from the 
     moratorium (or, it appears, whether a rule previously 
     exempted is no longer exempt). The requirement of monthly 
     reports means that the agency heads and the President will be 
     routinely lobbied by persons affected by covered rulemakings 
     as to whether or not a rulemaking should be in or exempt from 
     the moratorium. It is a nightmarish process except from the 
     perspective of a lobbyist.
       The five-month extension for deadlines is arbitrary, 
     unnecessary, and merely draws out this problematic 
     legislation. The Committee bill includes in the moratorium 
     all deadlines that have been imposed either by a court or 
     statute with respect to a significant regulatory action. 
     Senator Levin offered an amendment to strike this section of 
     the bill so that statutory and judicial deadlines would not 
     be affected by the moratorium. Deadlines are dates that have 
     been set previously by statute--passed by both houses of 
     Congress and the President--to require that a regulatory 
     action be taken by a date certain. Congress did not set those 
     deadlines unwittingly; we set them because we were concerned 
     enough about the particular situation to place the timing for 
     action into law. The Consumer Product Safety Commission rule 
     on choking hazards of toys for small children is one such 
     example. Congress passed a law in 1994 requiring the CPSC to 
     act by July 1, 1994, on rules implementing toy labeling 
     provisions for choking hazards. Similarly, we have courts 
     which have set deadlines based on extensive legal records and 
     proceedings. As with the issue of retroactivity, inclusion of 
     deadlines in the moratorium is useless, because many of these 
     deadlines involve rules that are already final and have 
     already become effective. Regulatory reform legislation will 
     not likely affect these rules.
       Moreover, the Committee bill establishes a new and longer 
     time period for the moratorium as it applies to deadlines. 
     The moratorium for significant regulatory actions is from 
     November 9, 1994, to December 31, 1995, but for statutory or 
     judicial deadlines, the moratorium extends for five months 
     beyond December 31st, to May 31, 1996. The majority states 
     that the purpose for the extended deadline is to avoid all 
     the deadlines coming into effect at the same time the 
     moratorium is lifted from the rulemakings. We do not see the 
     logic in this argument nor do we know of one request from an 
     agency that such an extended moratorium be provided for 
     deadlines.
       Many of the terms and definitions are unclear and will 
     likely compound the problems of unintended consequences. For 
     example, the bill's definition of ``significant regulatory 
     action'' includes any ``statement of agency policy, guidance, 
     guidelines.'' There was no discussion by the majority of what 
     this would actually cover. Thus, when the Committee accepted 
     an amendment to include in the ``significant'' definition any 
     action that ``withdraws or restricts recreational, 
     subsistence, or commercial use'' of public land, the majority 
     was unable to explain what would or would not be included.
       The Stevens amendment has wide-reaching, detrimental 
     effects for public lands. Meriting separate discussion is the 
     amendment by Senator Stevens that the Committee adopted 
     concerning Federal agency actions on Federal lands. The 
     Stevens amendment added to the definition of ``significant 
     regulatory action'' (and thus to coverage of the moratorium) 
     any agency action which ``withdraws or restricts 
     recreational, subsistence, or commercial use of any
      land under the control of a Federal agency. . . .''
       The Committee had an extensive discussion about the 
     amendment in an attempt to fully understand its scope. While 
     there was considerable uncertainty during the mark-up as to 
     the actual effect of the amendment, subsequent review has 
     demonstrated that the scope of the amendment is sweeping and 
     would stop not only regulatory actions but virtually all 
     enforcement of regulations on Federal lands. That means that 
     National Park Service employees would not be able to carry 
     out basic management responsibilities in our national parks. 
     The Park Service would not be able to prevent hot rods from 
     racing in national parks, restrict access to fragile 
     archaeological sites, or close dangerous passes on snow-
     covered peaks. As the National Parks and Conservation 
     Association has said, ``This prohibition against rulemaking 
     effectively eliminates the abilities of the Bureau of Land 
     Management, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife 
     Service and the Forest Service to manage federal lands for 
     resource protection.'' According to the Wilderness Society, 
     ``This sweeping amendment would undermine fundamental 
     protections for our national parks, national wildlife 
     refuges, national forests, and all other public lands.'' The 
     same strong point has been made by other conservation and 
     environmental groups. The Committee's adoption of the Stevens 
     Amendment demonstrates the lack of understanding the 
     Committee had with respect to the full consequences of its 
     actions on this bill.
                             3. conclusion

       The Committee hearing on February 22, 1995, and the mark-up 
     on March 7 and 9, 1995, highlighted many problems with the 
     moratorium proposal. The majority report only compounds these 
     issues. In the views above we have again discussed many of 
     these issues. Unfortunately, the outlined problems involve 
     only those examples that we know of now. We believe there 
     could well be many other important rules that would be 
     inadvertently or otherwise inappropriately be stopped. The 
     public will be the victims of such arbitrary congressional 
     action. The moratorium is a bad idea.
       There are most probably many rules that should be examined 
     and even rescinded. We would support any reasonable effort to 
     target specific regulatory problem areas--again, that is what 
     the President is currently doing. We cannot, however, support 
     an arbitrary, across-the-board freeze. We should fix the 
     regulatory process, we should not freeze it and the benefits 
     that flow from it.
     John Glenn.
     Sam Nunn.
     Carl Levin.
     David Pryor.
     Joseph I. Lieberman.
     Daniel K. Akaka.
 Examples of Regulations Stopped by the Regulatory Moratorium (S. 219)


                        public health and safety

       (1) Improved Poultry Inspections (USDA)
       (2) Seafood Safety (HHS)
       (3) Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for Passenger Car Brake 
     Systems (DOT)
       (4) Standardization of Aviation Rules (DOT)
       (5) Airport Rates and Charges (DOT)
       (6) Head Impact Protection (DOT)
       (7) Airline Crew Assignments (DOT)
       (8) Flight Attendant Duty Period Limitations and Rest 
     Requirements (DOT)
       (9) Alcoholic Beverage Labeling (Treasury)
       (10) Pesticide Regulation Flexibility (EPA)
       (11) Flammability Standard for Upholstered Furniture
       (12) Meat and Poultry Inspection Efforts (USDA) (exemption 
     rejected by GAC)
       (13) Standards for Nuclear Waste Disposal (EPA) (exemption 
     rejected by GAC)
       (14) Cleanup of Nuclear Facilities, Decontamination and 
     Decommissioning Standards (NRC) (exemption rejected by GAC)
       (15) Drinking Water Standards (exemption rejected by GAC)


                             worker safety

       (1) Logging Safety (DOL)
       (2) Safe Practices for Diesel Equipment in Underground Coal 
     Mines (DOL)
       (3) Worker Exposure to Cancer Causing Agents (DOL)
       (4) Reducing Exposure to Tuberculosis in the Workplace 
     (DOL)
       (5) Worker Exposure to Reproductive and Developmental Risks 
     (DOL)


                    economic growth and opportunity

       (1) Cruise Ship Access to Glacier Bay, Alaska (DOI)
       (2) Energy Efficient Appliances (DOE)
       (3) Forestry Regulations (Streamlining timber payments to 
     tribes) (DOI)
       (4) Landowner Relief Under Spotted Owl Regulation (DOI)
       (5) Personal Communications Systems Auctions (FCC)
       (6) Cable Rate Restructuring (FCC)
       (7) Lower Electric Rates (FERC)
       (8) Utility Rate Recovery (FERC)
       (9) Shrimp Harvesting (DOC)


                              environment

       (1) Alternative fuel Providers (DOE)
       (2) Great Lakes Protection (DOT)
       (3) Standardizing Regulations for Domestic Shipments of 
     Hazardous Waste (DOT)
       (4) Prevention of Oil Spills (DOT)
       (5) Agreement Establishing Water Quality Standards for San 
     Francisco Bay Delta (EPA)
       (6) Reducing Toxic Air Emissions (EPA)
       (7) Cleanup at Uranium Processing Sites (EPA)
       (8) Wetlands Determinations and Delineations (amendment to 
     include in the moratorium, accepted by GAC)
       (9) Withdrawals or Restrictions of Recreational, 
     Subsistence, or Commercial Use of Public Land (amendment to 
     include in the moratorium, accepted by GAC)


                           government reform

       (1) Personal Use of Campaign Funds by a Federal Candidate 
     (FEC)
       (2) Public Financing for Presidential Candidates (FEC)
       (3) Political Campaign Disclaimers (FEC)
       (4) Government Securities Large Position Reporting 
     Requirements (Treasury)


                                 other

       (1) Fisheries management (DOC)
       (2) Noncitizen Housing Requirements (HUD)
       (3) Preference for Elderly Families, Reservation for 
     Disabled Families in Section 8 Housing (HUD)
       (4) Continuation of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 
     and Federal National Mortgage Association Housing Goals (HUD)
       (5) Community Development Block Grants Economic Development 
     Guidelines (HUD)
       (6) Avoiding Homeowner Foreclosure (HUD)
       (7) Reducing FHA Fund Losses (HUD)
       (8) Increasing Home Ownership Opportunities for First Time 
     Buyers (HUD)
       (9) Family and Medical Leave Act (DOL)
       (10) Procedure for Removal of Local Labor Organization 
     Officers (DOL)
       (11) Emergency Broadcast System (FCC)
       [[Page S4625]] (12) Video Dialtone (FCC)
       (13) Caller ID (FCC)
       (14) Recovery of License Fees (NRC)
       (15) Enforcement of Constitutional Rights of Individuals 
     (exemption tabled by GAC)
  Mr. GLENN. Let me say on the issue of what rules might be covered by 
the moratorium: The reported Senate bill covers significant rules and 
related statements or actions, as well as any wetlands determinations, 
and any actions--not just rules--that affect the use of public land. 
The list of rules that I am submitting for the Record only covers the 
category of ``significant'' rules--those having an annual impact on the 
economy of over $100 million, or are otherwise determined to be of 
major importance. This is list has 58 entries.
  I have no idea how many wetlands determinations there might be during 
the moratorium. I also doubt that anyone could come up with a reliable 
list of all the actions that might be taken by any Federal agency 
relating to public lands--no trail closing, maybe no closing picnic 
areas at night, or restricting the number of people who can climb up 
the Statue of Liberty. I do not know.
  But this is not all. In addition to the Senate bill, we must remember 
that the House-passed bill covers all rules, significant or 
insignificant. This could total over 4,000 a year, if you include every 
little rule. I saw one list, just of important agency rules that might 
be covered by the House bill, and it had over 147 entries.
  The thought of simply stopping government decisions, to show that we 
are serious about regulatory reform, if just about the dumbest thing 
Congress could do. Let us reform the regulatory process, not freeze it. 
Let us show the American people that we are doing our job, not that we 
are out to lunch.


                       3. Real Regulatory Reform

  In addition to understanding the moratorium, it is also very 
important to understand the status of regulatory reform. Again, 
according to the Governmental Affairs Committee's majority report, the 
supporters of the moratorium have said that ``the purpose of the 
temporary moratorium is to give Congress enough time to pass 
legislation to comprehensively change the regulatory process.''
  In addition to our committee's hearing on the moratorium, Chairman 
Roth held regulatory reform hearings on February 8, 15, and March 8. 
The result was the committee's markup last Thursday, March 23, 1995, in 
which we considered, amended, and voted favorably on a bill--15 to 0. 
Every member of the committee, Democrat and Republican, voted to report 
out a real tough, regulatory reform bill.
  We should be back working on the committee report right now, but here 
we are--debating the moratorium--wasting time on damage control, when 
we could be working on real reform.
  We in the Governmental Affairs Committee are, of course, not alone in 
the regulatory reform effort. The majority leader's bill--S. 343--will 
probably be marked up this week by the Judiciary Committee. They, too, 
have had several hearings.
  The Energy Committee is also ready to mark up a bill that will, I 
believe, provide Government-wide reform.
  When one consider the ongoing agency review of current rules, with a 
report due to the President by June 1, and these regulatory reform 
bills that should all be ready to come to the floor within a matter of 
a few weeks, there simply is no need for the moratorium--even if one 
could ever explain how and why it was needed in the first place.
  Let us get on with the business of governing and of real reform. Let 
us leave the ill-conceived moratorium where it belongs--in the museum 
of stupid ideas.
  Mr. President, I do not know if anyone could disagree with the 
Senator from Nevada when he talks about the intrusion of rules and 
regulations on our society. I agree with him on that.
  We have all had many people come up to us at public events back in 
our States and talk about how they are being impacted by rules and 
regulations, that they think are nonsensical and really defy any 
rationality. I have agreed with them.
  But that is not the issue here. We all favor regulatory reform. We 
passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee, by unanimous vote of 
that committee--Democrat and Republican--last week, a regulatory reform 
bill, which has within it a legislative veto provision. There are some 
differences between that and this proposal today. But as I have already 
said, my basic problem goes even more deeply than just the differences 
between these two bills. The House-passed moratorium bill throws out 
the baby with bath water. It throws out the good rules with the bad, 
and needlessly.
  The Senator from Nevada was talking of the alternative, about how 
many of these rules should come back to us, instead. Do you know why we 
have so many regulations that are nonsensical now? We had testimony 
that 80 percent of the rules and regulations--80 percent of the rules 
and regulations--are written because we specifically required them to 
be written in legislation. We required them to write them. If there are 
excesses, should they come back for review? Yes, and I do not quarrel 
with that. I support a legislative veto. There is no problem with that. 
But I do not think a moratorium that just throws out the good with the 
bad makes any sense at all. And I can tell you again what things will 
be affected by this.
  We had testimony in committee by Rainer Mueller, and we had a press 
conference this morning with Nancy Donley, both of whom had lost 
children to E. coli bacteria. The USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
has new rules that have been proposed that make new inspections for 
meat that would prevent that happening. Here are people who have 
actually lost children, and we are talking about putting in a 
moratorium that would stop a rule that might save other families from 
having to go through that same kind of tragedy.
  We are talking about final rules on airline safety. There is probably 
not a person in this Chamber who has not flown on an airline. We have 
new rules that are being promulgated to take care of things such as 
airline crew assignments; standardization of aircraft rules; we have 
air worthiness of aircraft engines. These are things that involve the 
safety of the American public. We are talking about saying we can put a 
moratorium on things like that just because we want to throw a broad 
net, but we are going to catch all these things.
  We have had some bad rules and regulations--I am the first one to say 
that here--and we ought to correct those. But to say at the same time 
that we are going to throw out these things that are safety and health 
matters for the people of this country to get the few bad regulations, 
I just do not think makes any sense.
  Why do I bring it up when the Senator from Nevada is discussing a 45-
day hold over? Because I know the original sponsors of this legislation 
want the same bill the House passed, which is far more draconian and 
throws out most everything. That is what they passed over in the House.
  We debated this bill in committee and had many amendments, some were 
accepted, many were rejected. The bill was then reported out of 
committee. Now we have see the fallback position, that rather than 
bringing up that straight moratorium here on the floor, we will have a 
45-day review, almost a 45-day moratorium. But this 45-day idea is what 
would go to conference with the House on the far more draconian bill 
that they already have passed over there.
  What happens when you get to conference with the House? I do not 
know. But I know the tendency will be, since the original intent of the 
sponsors here in the Senate was to do what the House has already done, 
probably to want to compromise in the direction of the House. That is 
what concerns me very, very much.
  The bill as proposed here is one that would affect all rules, as I 
understand it. It is retroactive to November 9. As I also understand 
it, any Member can call up a rule for review.
  Now, the Governmental Affairs Committee has passed out a regulatory 
reform bill, a comprehensive regulatory reform bill that covers this 
idea of a legislative veto in that legislation. But what we do with 
that legislative veto is we make it apply to major rules and make it 
prospective so it does not go back and undo things that business, 
industry, and communities already are planning for. In that legislation 
we provided that it would take a petition 
[[Page S4626]] by 30 Members to bring a rule back up for consideration.
  Now, I thought that was probably a little high. I thought we did not 
need 30. I am sure we could debate that on the Senate floor when that 
legislation comes out. Whether we need 10 Members on a petition or some 
other number, we do need a number of Senators that say, ``Yes, this is 
bad, so we should reconsider that rule or that regulation, and bring 
that back up here on the floor.''
  We cannot have it where just one Member can call something up and 
say, ``This affects my State and I disagree,'' although it might be 
something that is agreeable for all the rest of the whole United 
States. I do not think we want to waste our time on things like that.
  Much has been made out of the fact that the President could exempt 
imminent health and safety matters. In committee, I challenged this 
time after time after time to please have the sponsors define 
``imminent.'' They could not do that. ``Imminent" means something, 
according to Webster's dictionary, that will happen right away--now. It 
is impending, right now. That would not cover such things as aircraft 
safety or airworthiness of airline engines. These are design things. 
They are new criteria. Nothing is imminent--even though it improves 
safety of the aircraft involved or the crew training involved. We do 
not expect the airplane to go down within hours or not complete the 
flight. But the overall safety of airlines is of major significance. 
Why should things like that ever be held up for a moratorium? Why 
should we have to debate about what is or is not ``imminent?"
  This is just one problem with the moratorium. And now our attention 
is turned to the 45-day legislative veto. But what we really should be 
doing, instead of piecemealing this effort, is to deal with the whole 
regulatory reform problem.
  Again, that is the legislation that we voted out of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee just last week. Final reports on that will be written 
and then we would be able to bring that up on the floor and debate the 
whole regulatory reform process, including a legislative veto.
  The danger of this one being brought up separately is that it will go 
over and be conferenced with the House, as I understand what is being 
proposed here. That means we are up against the House with their 
complete moratorium, going clear back to shortly after the election 
last fall. That is far more draconian. And it lasts a year. It lasts 
until the ends of this year.
  If our conferees on the bill would give in to some of the House 
provisions, it means we really are placing Americans, a far greater 
number of Americans, at risk for this year. That is, if that is what 
was agreed to.
  I repeat, I do not disagree with the legislative veto. We are the 
ones that caused much of the problem. Why should we not go back on 
major rules and reconsider those where we believe people over in the 
agencies really have gone too far, where they have not sufficiently 
reflected the will of the Congress.
  I do not see why we cannot bring up the Regulatory Reform Act of 
which a legislative veto is a part, not just pick this out separately 
so that it can now go to conference with the House. That is the danger 
in this, as I see it.
  Mr. President, so far there have been only about 127 examples that 
have come out of the different agencies, 127 examples that we were able 
to get on the short basis of items that would be held up, that I felt, 
and many other Members on our committee and the administration felt, 
were things that should not have a moratorium applied to them.
  But is that a complete list? No. We do not even know at this point 
what other E. coli situations or cryptosporidium situations may exist 
out there across this country, because we have not yet had a complete 
review of all the rules and regulations. That is ongoing right now.
  President Clinton issued a directive to all the departments and 
agencies and said, ``Scan all the rules and regulations, go through 
them all, see which ones are overbearing and too intrusive, which ones 
should be taken out, which ones should be modified, and give me a 
complete list of all those, a complete review of all rules and 
regulations across Government.'' Now that is in the process. It is in 
the process now. It is not a 2- or 3-year study. It is not something 
that goes on into the future. We get it by June 1.
  June 1, it turns out, is only 30 working days from now. If you look 
at the calendar and count out the Easter break and what we planned 
there, June 1 is just 30 working days from right now. I counted it up 
this morning on the calendar myself, just to see what time we would 
have on this.
  The administration has guaranteed us repeatedly, the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sally Katzen, has guaranteed us we 
are going to have that list by the 1st of June. Why go ahead and do a 
partial job of looking into rules and regulations when we have a 
complete list that is going to be available for us on the 1st of June? 
Do you know how many significant rules, those that have a $100 million 
impact or above, are made every year in this country? Between 800 and 
900; that was the testimony we had in committee. So when we have come 
up just with 127 rules that would be particularly affected by 
moratorium legislation, we are just nibbling around the edges. They are 
going through, not only those 800 to 900 over the last year or so, but 
the 800 to 900 per year that passed back for a long time. There are 
going to be several thousands of these rules that will be reviewed. We 
will get recommendations. Then we can take action on these things.
  We can take action on some we separate out, some we may not agree 
with the administration about. I may disagree with them on a lot of 
them and be willing to go back and repass those things, or if necessary 
send them back to committee here to be reconsidered, if that is what is 
necessary. I am that dedicated to getting to real, honest-to-goodness 
regulatory reform. We need that. I support it. I worked on it the last 
3 years in the Governmental Affairs Committee when I was still 
chairman, and I am still working on it now.
  Our new committee chairman, Senator Roth, has picked this up and he 
is pushing regulatory reform, to his everlasting credit. I complimented 
him the other day in public and will do so here on the floor again 
today. He really has been a champion in pushing regulatory reform. And 
what we voted out last week is an excellent bill. It is a tough 
regulatory bill. It is not draconian; it is very realistic. That is 
what we should be doing, considering regulatory reform on that basis, 
and not just picking out a little moratorium portion of this or a 
legislative veto portion of that for consideration separately. We have 
at hand a bill through which we can really make major regulatory 
reform, which is what we are all after.
  As I started my comments, we have all heard over and over again the 
unhappiness of our people back home, of business and industry and farms 
and just individuals, impacted in their daily lives by rules and 
regulations that should never be out there.
  I heard somebody berating the Clinton administration on this a couple 
of days ago. That is not the problem. The rules and regulations have 
been building up for the last 10 years or more. You can see a huge 
increase in regulations--really a bipartisan increase--thinking about 
the laws that led to those rules. So I look forward to having 
bipartisan solutions to this problem, also. I think we do it by taking 
a broad approach to regulatory reform, of which legislative review is 
one part of that legislation, and if the 45-day legislative veto would 
apply prospectively, I would support that.
  I know my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, who 
has worked very hard on regulatory reform on the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, probably is as expert in this area as anyone we have in the 
Senate--I know he favors that, and I do, too. I see nothing wrong with 
that.
  I do not like it going back. I do not like it retroactive.
  I hope, Mr. President, we could get together, perhaps, and work this 
out so we get leadership to bring up the regulatory reform package, the 
total bill of which something like this is a part, and bring it up at a 
very early date. If we can do that, then we will have done a great 
service for this country. We will have gone a long ways toward telling 
people that, yes, we know the regulatory impact has been too heavy. We 
are doing something about it.
  [[Page S4627]] But at the same time, we should not be saying that we 
are going to throw out important health and safety rules. And why would 
even think of doing that? Not even because we disagree with all those 
rules and regulations, but because we are just saying everything should 
go out, even the good--this makes no sense.
  That is what I disagree with on a moratorium, and what I disagree 
with strongly on the approach the House took. If we want to see who is 
at fault with regulations into the future, then, as I said earlier, we 
look in the mirror. Let's stop this. Let's be a part of fixing the 
process. Let's not make it worse.
  Mr. President, I think we are on limited time--parliamentary inquiry; 
are we on limited time this morning?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is limited.
  Mr. GLENN. How is time divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three hours was accorded to each side for 
today.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Washington 
Post editorial dated March 26, 1995, entitled ``Good Move on 
Regulation,'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 26, 1995]

                        Good Move on Regulation

       The United States has become an overregulated society. It 
     is not just the volume or even the cost of regulation that is 
     the problem, but the haphazard pattern--a lack of proportion. 
     The government too often seems to be battling major and minor 
     risks, widespread and narrow, real and negligible, with equal 
     zeal. The underlying statutes are not a coherent body of law 
     but a kind of archeological pile, each layer a reflection of 
     the headlines and political impulses of its day. The 
     excessive regulations discredit the essential. Too little 
     attention is paid to the cost of the whole and the relation 
     of cost to benefit.
       The election results last November at least in some degree 
     reflected resentment and impatience about this--and rightly 
     so. The Republican-led Congress so understood and set about 
     to fix this system, which unlike some things the government 
     tries to fix, clearly is ``broke.'' The trick is to make sure 
     the fix will itself be the right one, and one that will not 
     end up killing good regulation along with bad.
       The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee last week 
     unanimously reported out a bipartisan regulatory reform bill 
     the likely effect of which would be to improve the process 
     rather than mangle it. It's a vast improvement over the 
     merely anti-regulatory legislation too hastily passed several 
     weeks ago by the House, as well as various rival bills in the 
     Senate, including a proposal by majority leader Bob Dole. ``A 
     restoration of common sense,'' Sen. William Cohen, a member 
     of the governmental affairs committee, called the bill, and 
     he is right.
       The House voted both to impose a clumsy retroactive freeze 
     on federal regulatory activity and to standardize and weaken 
     in a single stroke the carefully worked out, separate 
     regulatory standards in a broad array of health and safety 
     and environmental legislation. The Senate committee bill 
     would do neither of those things. Rather, it would require 
     cost-benefit and other studies of all new major regulations 
     and the regulatory process generally. Some of these are 
     already done by executive order, others not.
       With the studies as part of the basis for judgment, all 
     major new regulations would then be submitted to Congress. 
     The two houses together would have a set period in which to 
     disapprove them; a resolution of disapproval would have to be 
     signed and could be vetoed by the president. Some advocacy 
     groups complain that this would politicize and harm the 
     regulatory process. We think that, to the contrary, it would 
     serve to legitimize and strengthen regulations once issued by 
     putting them on a sounder political footing. Congress, under 
     the present dispensation, can have it both ways. It passes 
     broad regulatory statutes with laudable goals--clean air, 
     clean water, pure food and drugs--and then denounces as 
     heavy-handed and too costly the resulting regulations. Given 
     a legislative veto, it would have to take responsibility for 
     the fruits of its own handiwork. If some regulations were 
     then struck down before they could take effect, it would 
     finally be up to the voters to decide whether that was good 
     or bad.
       The bill would also require agencies to do cost-benefit 
     analyses and risk assessments of existing major regulations 
     over a number of years; to do comparative risk analyses in 
     order to make sure that within their purviews they were 
     attacking the greatest risks first; and to take part in the 
     compilation of a ``regulatory accounting'' every two years, 
     setting forth the benefits and compliance costs of 
     regulations government-wide. The idea is to give Congress and 
     the executive branch alike a better basis than they have now 
     on which to make regulatory policy.
       The measure wouldn't solve all regulatory excess. But it 
     would put the regulatory process on a steadier and more 
     rational footing, and expose regulatory decisions to the 
     political process early on and in a healthy way. It's a good 
     framework, and we hope Mr. Dole and the Senate stick to 
     something like it.
                     Privilege Of The Floor--S. 219

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent also that during 
the consideration of S. 219, Jenny Craig of my staff be granted the 
privilege of the floor during consideration of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield me a few minutes?
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield the Senator such time as he desires.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to make sure there is no 
misunderstanding about the substitute. We do not intend to throw the 
baby out with the bath water, but I think what we have is a reasonable 
framework to review all regulations promulgated by Federal agencies. 
This is not a blanket. We can pick and choose those that we feel are 
appropriately reviewable. It saves those regulations, which will be the 
vast majority of them, and those which are bad we can take a look at.
  I repeat, one of the reasons I like this approach so much is it will 
have regulators be more cautious in the regulations that they 
promulgate. We know, following the Chadha decision, that regulators 
have said they do not care what we think of the regulations they 
promulgate; there is nothing we can do about it. This substitute will 
no longer allow bureaucrats to say that to Congress. If they are in 
very tight with their President, and we review those regulations and 
turn them down and the President wants to veto them, then it is up to 
us as a legislative body to see if we can get a two-thirds vote to 
override the veto. I would rather not have it that way, but that is 
what we have to have in order to work within the confines of the Chadha 
decision.
  We have here a substitute that is on all fours--totally and 
irrevocably constitutional. I was necessarily off the floor for a 
minute, but I did understand that my friend from Ohio, the senior 
Senator from Ohio, indicated that E. coli, the disease that swept this 
country that was so difficult--if this were, in effect, the substitute, 
they could not issue such a regulation to deal with that disease. That 
is not true. We specifically have an exemption in our substitute that 
would allow matters of public health and safety to go forward.
  There is also an argument that has been propounded that this 
legislation, the substitute, is a broad net that will kill a large 
number of regulations just to get at a few bad ones.
  I hope that is not the case. But I hope, in reverse order, if there 
are a large number of bad regulations, that they will not be proposed.
  Finally, Mr. President, this Senator does not like the underlying 
legislation. That is why I am so much in support of the substitute. I 
believe the substitute is good legislation. I believe it is something 
that will make this body proud. I believe it is something that the 
American public wants. The American public does not want us to stop all 
regulations. There are some good regulations. I went over some of them. 
We know the Food and Drug Administration does some good work, and they 
have gotten better in recent years.
  So I want the substitute passed. I want it passed by an overwhelming 
majority so that when we go to conference with the House, we will have 
a strong position within which to negotiate. Mr. President, I hope that 
this legislation, this substitute, that has been offered by the Senator 
from Oklahoma and myself, will be supported by a large bipartisan vote. 
This legislation is among the best that I think I have ever worked on. 
It answers a significant problem that big business faces, that small 
business faces, and the American public generally feels; that is, too 
much regulation.
  Interestingly, as I have indicated, all business is not opposed to 
regulation. We know there is a basis for regulation. And, in fact, I 
served as the chairman of the toxic subcommittee for 4 years, and would 
have this year but for the fact that the Republicans took control of 
the Senate. We did, I think, some very good work there. We dealt with 
all kinds of toxic substances. But 
[[Page S4628]] one of the groups I worked with that was continually 
before my subcommittee was the Chemical Manufacturers Association as we 
dealt with things they deal with.
  There is an interesting article in the Atlanta Journal of January 11 
that talks about the Chemical Manufacturers Association. I was 
surprised to read this. The Chemical Manufacturers Association, which 
has more than 180 members, including large companies like Dow, Du Pont, 
and Monsanto, said:

       We are not necessarily in favor of revolutionizing how we 
     approach regulations because some of them, according to 
     Chemical Manufacturers, are good.

  The article says:

       The association supports regulatory reform but it also 
     sounds downright worried that some of the extremist, anti-
     environmental rhetoric now coming out of Congress will lead 
     to deregulation schemes that will get out of control and go 
     too far.

  That is a quote from an official of the Chemical Manufacturers 
Association.
  Says Fred Webber, president of the Chemical Manufacturers 
Association, from the same article:

       Reform, let me say this very clearly, is not the same as 
     repeal. The current system of . . . regulations has 
     accomplished a great deal over the past quarter of a century. 
     We do not want to undo that success, and we do not want to 
     tolerate any retreat from our commitment of protecting the 
     people and the environment.

  I could not say it any better. That is also how I feel. What we are 
charged to do in this body is to make what we have better. That is what 
this substitute does. It does not repeal all regulations. It does not 
say we are not going to have any more regulations. It is not a blanket 
moratorium. What it says is that in the future, bureaucrat, be careful 
what you do because we are watching, and we have a regulatory veto 
scheme that meets the constitutional requirements of the U.S. Supreme 
Court.
  Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues on this side of the aisle 
will understand what is going on here. We want to pass a bipartisan 
bill. The Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Nevada are 
sponsoring a substitute amendment that we believe should have unanimous 
support, if not heavy support. It is a commonsense way to approach 
regulatory reform. It is not regulatory repeal. I hope that my friends 
on this side of the aisle will join in this venture to improve the way 
regulations are handled in this country.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, Senator 
Reid from Nevada, for his comments, and I would like to respond briefly 
to some of the statements that were made by my friend and colleague 
from Ohio, Senator Glenn.
  I think the thrust of what I heard in his comments was that he was 
afraid, if we pass this and go to conference, that we might have that 
terrible House bill. Let me just state it is my intention, if we are 
successful in passing this bill--and I expect that we will be 
successful in passing this bill--to do everything I can do to get the 
House to concur with the Senate position. I think the Senate bill, I 
tell my friend from Ohio--I was a sponsor of both--that this substitute 
is preferable to the moratorium legislation reported by the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. I think substitute is a better 
approach. Let me tell my friend and colleague from Ohio that, one, the 
substitute is permanent. The House bill and the Senate bill, the one 
that was reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee, are 
temporary moratoriums. Those will expire as soon as we pass a 
comprehensive regulatory reform bill. That may be a couple of months.
  So the temporary moratorium bill has received a lot of attention and 
a lot of partisan bickering, and there may be a very short period of 
time that it would be in effect, even if it did pass and even if it 
survived a Presidential veto, both of which are in doubt somewhat. The 
President indicated he would veto it. The House did not have quite the 
votes to override the veto. I do not think we would have the votes to 
override the veto in the Senate. I do not mind sending the bill to the 
President and letting him veto it. However, that is not my intention. I 
would like to pass significant regulatory relief regulation this year 
and have the President sign it.
  I think the substitute that Senator Reid and I are proposing will do 
that. I think the President will sign it. I see no reason why he will 
not sign it. I am interested in passing the bill that Senator Reid and 
I are offering, the 45-day congressional review substitute which will 
be permanent law. So, whereas the temporary moratorium may succeed, if 
it were successful, in delaying some regulations for a few months, that 
time period would soon be gone and you would have nothing. This would 
be permanent law. This would be a significant response. This would give 
real energy, I think, for Members of Congress to review the regulators 
and to hold them accountable.
  So I tell my friend and colleague from Ohio that, if I should be 
appointed a conferee, I would work very energetically to see that the 
Senate's position would prevail. I am very familiar with both pieces of 
legislation. I have heard my colleague from Ohio mention the underlying 
bill, the one reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and 
he also referred to the House bill as a terrible bill and one that 
would throw out all regulations and cut out all of these rules and 
regulations whether they are good or bad. I disagree with that 
interpretation.
  Looking at the bill as reported, S. 219, it has all kinds exemptions. 
One of the reasons I am not as excited about S. 219 as reported is 
because we have so many exemptions. I question how effective it would 
be. There are many regulations that will be covered by these 
exemptions. We have exemptions for imminent threat to human health and 
safety and other emergencies. I have heard E. coli mentioned. I have 
heard problems about drinking water. I have heard of air traffic 
problems or flight safety.
  I think that the President, under the bill reported out of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee and also by the House, could exempt all 
of the rules mentioned previously by my colleague from Ohio. However, 
again, I am not here to debate S. 219 as reported. I am offering a 
substitute to it. But I think it is important to show for the record 
that a lot of the scare tactics used against the House-passed bill and 
the Senate bill that passed the Governmental Affairs Committee are not 
as egregious, not as outlandish, and not as heartless as some people 
would indicate.
  S. 219 as reported out of committee also has exemptions for a 
regulation which has as its purpose the enforcement of criminal law or 
a regulation that has as its principal effect fostering economic 
growth, repealing, narrowing, streamlining the regulation and 
administrative process or otherwise reducing regulatory burdens. I have 
heard some people, including the President of the United States, say 
the moratorium bill would throw out all regulations, good ones and bad 
ones. As I have stated, there are clearly exceptions for good 
regulations.
  We also have an exception for routine administrative actions and 
regulations related to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or 
contracts. I mention that one because the President of the United 
States said that if this moratorium bill is adopted, we will not be 
able to bury people in Arlington National Cemetery or that we would not 
be able to have duck hunting, both of which are routine administrative 
actions.
  I just mention that. I am not here to defend this bill. I look at all 
these eight exemptions. The committee added a couple of others. My 
point being there are lots of exemptions. The President would probably 
exempt a great number of regulations under these. In addition, he would 
probably veto the moratorium legislation. So my thought is why not do 
something that we can pass? Why not do something that the President can 
sign? Why not do something that would not be temporary? Why not do 
something that would have, I believe, a long-lasting impact in reducing 
the impact of expensive, unnecessary regulations?
  There are thousands of potential regulations. How many would Congress 
move on? On how many would Congress pass a resolution of disapproval? 
Probably only a few. But at least it would make Congress responsible.
  I wonder how many Members of Congress have said, well, we passed the 
law--for example the Americans With 
[[Page S4629]] Disabilities Act or the Clean Air Act or maybe it was 
some other very well-intentioned bill--and then a Member of Congress is 
flabbergasted to find out, that a city in your State is no longer in 
compliance with the Clean Air Act, and therefore the city is not able 
to accept a new plant or new factory because of clean air constraints. 
The member would say I did not know. Where did this happen? The Member 
would be told it happened as a result of the Clean Air Act. How did 
that happen? It happened as a result of regulations that were just 
issued and, therefore, the city in your State is in nonattainment. 
Well, it came from regulations implementing the clean air bill. On and 
on, people kind of washing their hands.
  Well, the legislation was well-intended, it had good intentions, but 
now the regulations have become so cumbersome, so expensive, so 
Congress is kind of washing its hands. The regulators say, no, Congress 
said so. And now they are implementing hundreds and maybe thousands of 
pages of regulations. My point is that Congress should be more 
accountable. Congress should hold the regulators accountable. So of all 
the thousands of regulations that are in process, we are saying 
Congress should have a 45-day expedited procedure where we can stop 
them if we think they are egregious or if we disagree with their 
intent.
  I am pleased that the more comprehensive bill that Senator Glenn 
alluded to that passed the Governmental Affairs Committee, that will 
likely be taken up on the Senate floor sometime in May, did call for 
congressional review. But I might mention, as I understand the 
legislation approved by the Governmental Affairs Committee, the 45-day 
review provision applies only to significant regulations. Why should we 
limit this Congress to only review significant regulations? If we want 
to repeal a regulation--and under our bill it takes a majority of both 
Houses to pass it--we should have that opportunity.
  Again, of the thousands of regulations, my guess is we will only do a 
few, but at least we will have the opportunity to hold bureaucrats 
accountable whether it is a small regulation or large regulation.
  I think the proposal that we have, the substitute that we have is a 
commonsense approach. It is not outlandish. I will just again repeat to 
my friend and colleague, my intentions would be to try to convince our 
colleagues in the House that this approach achieves the same objective 
they are trying to achieve in the House on limiting unwarranted 
regulation and it is something we can pass and it is something we 
should pass and hopefully get the House to recede to the Senate when we 
go to conference.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.
  The Senator from Oklahoma brings up the key phrase that we debated 
long and hard in the Governmental Affairs Committee. Let me read from 
our minority report of that bill: The bill's exemption of rules that 
addresses any ``imminent threat to health and safety'' is unclear and 
the majority report's interpretation leaves unanswered many questions 
about what would and would not be covered. The bill would permit the 
President, upon written request by an agency head, to exempt a 
significant regulatory action from the moratorium upon a finding that 
the regulatory action ``is necessary because of an imminent threat to 
human health or safety or other emergency.''
  That is the same language that is in the proposal by my distinguished 
colleague from Oklahoma that we are considering here.
  For certain amendments in the markup, the majority argued that 
specific exemptions were unnecessary because of the broad exemption 
authority given to the President under section 5 of the legislation. 
The majority could not, however, provide a consistent interpretation of 
``imminent'' or how it would be applied.
  Now, let me tell you what we did. In committee, I repeatedly asked 
for a definition of ``imminent.'' I even got the definition out of 
Webster's, which said ``impending, immediate,'' and so on. It would not 
cover such things as airline safety, even though we know those rules 
and regulations should not be held up; there are no reasons why they 
should be held up.
  But of more immediate importance this morning is this. I would ask my 
distinguished colleague from Oklahoma to listen to what I proposed in 
committee. I proposed in committee the E. coli prevention standards 
that he referred to, that we make an exemption for them; E. coli is a 
threat. We know that. We have had deaths from it. The amendment was 
voted down.
  I brought up an amendment on cryptosporidium. It killed 100 people up 
in Wisconsin, and 400,000 fell ill. Once again, it was voted down as 
not being something that should be exempted. They were against it. Now, 
with that being the situation, I do not know what can be classified as 
imminent health and safety threats. While people have died, I'm not 
sure it would qualify as an ``imminent threat'' and therefore covered 
under that exemption.
  So that is the reason I do not understand quite what we are doing. I 
appreciate the statement by my colleague from Oklahoma that he wants to 
convince the House that their bill is bad and that this one would be 
better. I certainly take him at his word on that.
  Why not consider this then? Consider the proposal today out from 
under the umbrella of what the House has done so that we will not have 
the moratorium as a conferenceable item. Why not have the legislative 
veto as a separate bill? Why not go to the underlying bill here, S. 
219, and not have an amendment? Instead, we could strike the moratorium 
and consider just the legislative veto amendment by itself, not as 
something that will go to conference with the House.
  I do not know whether my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma would 
be willing to do that or not, but I have pointed out that the Nickles-
Reid substitute, I felt, was perhaps an attempt to avoid Senate debate 
of the amendment on the underlying regulatory moratorium. If the 
objective is to go to conference with the House, which has passed a 
draconian--and I would repeat that word, which my distinguished 
colleague repeated himself a moment ago quoting me--regulatory 
moratorium bill, the result of the conference, when it comes back to 
us, would be unamendable.
  Now, maybe I am wrong about this as being their strategy. Perhaps I 
am too suspicious. Maybe that is not the purpose of the substitute. 
Maybe the sponsors really just intended to use S. 219 as a convenient 
vehicle for the content of their amendment.
  If that is the purpose, they need only to wait until a comprehensive 
regulatory reform bill, such as S. 343 or S. 291, comes to the floor, 
as they will, since both bills have been reported out by the 
Governmental Affairs Committee and both contain provisions for 
legislative veto of major regulations.
  I do not know why we cannot wait until S. 343 or S. 291 comes to the 
floor. Maybe they just want their amendment to be considered now for 
other reasons. I think there would be an easy way to test whether the 
purpose of this amendment is to get it to a moratorium on regulations 
in a conference with the House or whether they just want their 
amendment considered as a stand-alone proposal. The test is whether 
there will be an objection to consider the substitute as a stand-alone 
bill.
  If I made a unanimous consent request to consider the amendment as a 
stand-alone bill, I do not know what the response would be on the other 
side. But that would take away any opportunity as to what the intent of 
this legislation is.
  I will not proceed with it at this point, but if I asked for 
unanimous consent--I am not asking for it formally now--but if I ask 
unanimous consent that the Nickles-Reid substitute amendment to S. 219 
be sent to the desk as a stand-alone bill and that it be given 
immediate consideration, and that S. 219 be put aside indefinitely or 
until the Senate takes up and disposes of either S. 343 or S. 291, or 
other similar bills on comprehensive regulatory reform, would the 
distinguished Senator from Oklahoma object to that? If he would, I ask 
why.
  Mr. NICKLES. I apologize. I was in another conference.
  But if the thrust of the Senator's question was would I object to 
having a unanimous consent request that we 
[[Page S4630]] have this as a freestanding bill instead of S. 219----
  Mr. GLENN. The reason I asked is because the Senator says he wants to 
go to conference with the House and does not plan, of course, to give 
in to the moratorium in the House, even though he proposed the same 
thing originally. Then, if the intent is just to get the legislative 
veto, which we have already voted out of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee in the regulatory reform bills, why not set S. 219 aside? We 
would let this amendment proceed as a freestanding bill, if it is 
intended just for the 45-day legislative veto, and not take this to 
conference with the House.
  Mr. NICKLES. As the Senator knows, it takes two Houses to pass 
anything. The House already passed one bill. If we pass this free 
standing, then they would have to consider another piece of legislation 
entirely. They went through a lot of pain to get where they are today. 
I think that would create a lot of hard feelings over there. I do not 
want to do that.
  I have told my friend and colleague--the Senator said I was against 
the House bill--I did not say that. I would like to correct my 
colleague. I would like to correct him on a little bit of the 
interpretation of the House bill.
  But my point is, I favor this approach. I think this is a better 
approach. I think the moratorium, as the Senator has alluded to, made a 
lot of sense when we were in January. Now, we are at the end of March.
  I would like to have something passed. I believe if we pass this 
tomorrow, hopefully we can convince the House to pass it--basically 
recede to the Senate--and we may have a bill on the President's desk 
very soon; this week, possibly. I would like to see that happen.
  I am afraid if we did the freestanding approach that the Senator 
alluded to, we may end up with nothing. And I think that would be a 
mistake.
  Mr. GLENN. If the Senator will yield, we are talking about not having 
action in the House. The House would have to consider this, too, and so 
they would have to go back and reconsider this substitute to the 
moratorium.
  Why not consider this as a freestanding bill, rather than as 
something to be conferenced between the House moratorium bill that was 
passed and this bill? Why not consider this separately, if this is a 
good idea on its own?
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. Let me finish replying, but I will be happy to yield. 
The Senator from Ohio has the floor.
  The House has already passed the legislation. If we pass entirely new 
freestanding legislation, then it has not even made the first hurdle. 
We are ready to go to conference very soon. If we pass this in the 
Senate tomorrow, as I hope and expect that we will, the House could 
recede. Both sides have to appoint conferees. If we could convince our 
colleagues in the House that this is a better approach, given the fact 
that the year has already moved along and so on--and I might tell my 
friend and colleague, originally we were talking about a 100-day 
moratorium back in November. So time has been moving. This is more 
permanent, more significant.
  If we can convince our House colleagues of that, we could possibly 
have a bill on the President's desk in a short period of time.
  Mr. GLENN. The House is going to have to take action one way or the 
other. Why not take action on this?
  You are saying you hope to convince the House to come to your 
persuasion on the substitute to the moratorium. Why not pass the 
legislative veto separately and send it over to the House? They would 
take action on it, and it would get to the President's desk in the same 
length of time. The way you are talking about it, there is going to 
have to be a conference with the House on this bill, with the chance 
that we may wind up with most of what is in the House bill now. We do 
not know how strongly they may feel about this. I would feel much 
better about this if we had this as a freestanding bill. And if the 
intent of the sponsors is as they say it is, then I do not see why you 
would object to this procedure.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Ohio allow the Senator from Nevada to 
respond to the question?
  Mr. GLENN. Yes.
  Mr. REID. We have the underlying bill that is now before the Senate. 
Tomorrow, it has been the decision of the Senator from Oklahoma and the 
Senator from Nevada to offer a substitute. Of course, if the substitute 
passes, the vehicle that will be before the Senate will be our 
substitute.
  I say to my friend from Ohio, it is pretty standard procedure around 
here to say, ``Why don't you drop your amendment? You can bring it up 
as a freestanding bill.''
  Well, we know why we do not want to do that. Because momentum would 
be lost for our legislation.
  It seems to me quite clear if our substitute passes, there will be a 
significant opportunity. If in fact--and I mentioned this in my earlier 
statement--if, in fact, the Senate, in a strong bipartisan fashion, 
passes this substitute, it will give the Senate conferees real 
direction on how to deal with the House. I support the substitute. I do 
not support the underlying legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GLENN. Let me just ask one question, then I will yield, because I 
have held the floor long enough already and I know the Senator wants to 
speak.
  Mr. LEVIN. No, I just wanted you to yield for a question.
  Mr. GLENN. Go ahead.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is it not true, in fact, that we would pass this more 
quickly if it were done as a freestanding bill, as was just adopted by 
the House, because you could then avoid the conference?
  Mr. GLENN. Absolutely. I think that would be exactly the case.
  I come back to my previous point, and I did not get an answer to 
that. I would like to, here on the Senate floor, finally and at last 
hear a definition of imminent threat to health and safety or other 
emergency.
  Now, I know Webster's definition. But the definition of imminent 
threat did not explicitly include in committee E. coli or 
cryptosporidium.
  I would like, here on the Senate floor, before I have to decide how I 
am going to vote on this bill, to have a firm definition of imminent 
threat to health and safety or other emergencies.
  In committee, they said, ``Well, we leave this up to the President.'' 
That is not good enough; we are critical around here all the time of 
what the President interprets or does not interpret out of legislation.
  What is a clear-cut definition of imminent threat to health and 
safety?
  Mr. NICKLES. Would the Senator like a response?
  Mr. GLENN. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I would just tell my colleague, in looking at the bill 
on page 9, its says ``the President finds in writing.'' The Presidents 
makes that determination.
  I might also tell my colleague that we did not have it subject to 
judicial review. So if the President finds, if the President determines 
that E. coli, or anything else, is an imminent threat to health and 
safety or other emergency, it would be exempted. We give that kind of 
discretion. I happen to think that is a very broad provision, where we 
would give that to the President and not try to limit it, not try to 
micromanage it.
  As the Senator knows, he alluded to the fact, there are thousands of 
regulations. To go through and try to enumerate which ones would 
qualify and which ones would not, we would be looking at a bill that 
would be very difficult. We were not trying to do that.
  Just as when the original legislation was drafted, we did not say 
duck hunting would be exempted because we did have a provision that 
said routine administrative action would be taken. And, as an author of 
this, we did not feel that it was necessary to go through and define 
4,000 exemptions. That was not our intent.
  But the approach that Senator Reid and I are now taking, I think is a 
good one, because we do not have to get into that debate.
  One of the reasons I think the bill that was reported out of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee is not worth very much is because almost 
all regulations could be exempted. There are 4,300 regulations that are 
in process. The Governmental Affairs Committee says this bill only 
applies to significant regulations. That is about 900 out of the 4,500. 
Then all of the exemptions, apply that to those 900; Many more of the 
900 would be exempted under the exemptions outlined in the bill.
  [[Page S4631]] So this bill only lasts for a few months and probably 
only applies to a few hundred regulations. The House bill is somewhat 
broader, but we end up with almost nothing, because I think the 
President could determine it as a threat to public health and safety or 
a routine regulation or a regulation fostering economic growth.
 He could drive a very broad path through these exemptions.

  So I am saying that the approach of Senator Reid and myself is to let 
the President go forward on the routine regulatory framework and, 
Congress, you can review those regulations, and, if we get a majority 
vote in both Houses of Congress for disapproval, we can try to stop 
them. If the President still disagrees with us, he has the veto, and we 
will have to override the veto. That is not an easy challenge.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, giving the President broad authority is one 
thing and giving him broad interpretive authority over what is imminent 
and what is not is another matter entirely.
  When the committees of Congress and when we on the floor refuse to 
define ``imminent,'' and we say that is up to the President and his 
people and we give him broad authority in that area, when the President 
depends on his people to give him advice on what is imminent or what is 
not, they go back to what was intended in the legislation in the 
Congress.
  What they have to go on right now is a vote in the Governmental 
Affairs Committee that said that standards to protect the public from 
E. coli or cryptosporidium should not be exempted. It is not clear to 
me whether they would be exempted under the ``imminent threat'' 
exemption or not. I voted to exclude them from the moratorium just to 
make sure. I do not think we have a good definition of ``imminent.''
  I know my friend from Michigan wants to make some remarks, and I will 
not belabor this any further. If we do not adequately define imminent 
threat to health or safety or other emergency, we leave it up to the 
President and then we will criticize him in specific cases if his 
judgment is not what we agree with. We should have a better definition 
of this term. We were unable to get it in committee. We were unable to 
get it on the floor, too, as far as I see it. The legislative history 
right now would show that standards to protect against E. coli and 
cryptosporidium are not clearly and explicitly exempted from the 
moratorium.
  I reserve the remainder of time. I ask how much time we have left on 
our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has 2 hours 50 seconds--
just slightly over 2 hours.
  Mr. GLENN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator from Michigan will give me a couple 
minutes, I am not here to debate the underlying bill. But on the 
committee report, page 14, ``Section 5. Emergency exceptions; 
exclusions'':

       It is the committee's understanding that the President has 
     ample authority to except from the moratorium the 
     promulgation of rules and regulations that are necessary to 
     make food safe from E. coli bacteria, so long as there are no 
     accompanying extraneous requirements or arbitrary rules. 
     Several witnesses so testified at this committee's hearing.

  I can read on, but I think the committee report will show the 
committee does think the President has that authority and would be able 
to make that determination.
  Mr. President, the point I make now and, hopefully, my colleagues 
will comprehend is that under the proposal of Senator Reid and myself, 
regulatory agencies can make their regs, they can promulgate their 
rules and regulations. Senator Reid and I are saying they have that 
authority, they can do so, and except for the big ones, they all go 
into effect as planned, except that we have the opportunity to have 
expedited procedures to rescind them or to repeal them. On the large 
ones, the ones that have significant impact, they would be postponed, 
there would be a moratorium of their effective date for 45 days to give 
Congress a chance to review those.
  That, I think, is a proper check and balance on the regulators. So if 
the administration came out with regulations dealing with E. coli, if 
nobody pushed resolutions of disapproval, they would go into effect. If 
the administration has regulations dealing with air traffic safety or 
something, they would go into effect unless both Houses passed a 
resolution of disapproval. So it puts the burden on Congress to select 
which ones are wrong.
  My colleague from Ohio makes a good point in saying under the 
previous legislation, under the legislation that was reported out of 
the Governmental Affairs Committee, all discretion was given to the 
President; the President makes the determinations, the President 
determines the exemptions.
  I think he had ample opportunity under the legislation, as passed out 
of the Governmental Affairs Committee, to exempt lots of regulations, 
maybe all regulations. He could say there is a positive health impact 
or threat to danger, or threat to health and safety or that they had a 
positive economic impact.
  So he could exempt anything, I think, under the bill that passed out 
of the Governmental Affairs Committee. That was all given to the 
President. The President had sole authority to make the determination 
on the exceptions. That was the bill that was reported out of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee.
  We are saying, no, Congress has a responsibility, Congress should be 
making some determinations. Congress can let these rules go into effect 
if we desire. Under Senator Reid's approach and mine, Congress would 
take the initiative, and if we did not like the rule or regulation, we 
have an expedited procedure to review it and possibly repeal it. So it 
puts some of the burden back on Congress instead of, under the bill as 
reported out of committee, all that burden was on the executive branch.
  I think it is a good approach, and I hope my colleagues will concur.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Ohio if he can yield 
me 20 minutes.
  Mr. GLENN. I yield whatever time is needed.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the bill that we will be taking up 
tomorrow, S. 219, the regulatory moratorium bill, is really Government 
at its worst. It is arbitrary, it is extreme, it is unfair, it is a 
reckless piece of legislation.
  As Senator Glenn has already described, S. 219 would stop or suspend 
all regulatory action taken between November 9, 1994, and December 31, 
1995. In other words, it is also retroactive. It not only stops 
regulations from being issued this year through December 31, it goes 
back, picks an arbitrary date and suspends all regulatory actions taken 
from November 9 to the present, even those that are final and 
effective; even those that people, industries, and businesses have 
counted on, have changed their method of operation in order to 
accommodate, even those which industry and businesses have pleaded with 
us to put into effect. And there are such regulations, and I will get 
into some of those in a moment.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee amended S. 219 in reporting it to 
the floor by applying it to significant regulatory actions, which are 
about 800 to 900 in any one year. But the committee did not alter the 
retroactive feature of this bill.
  I want to go back and look at how this thing started in the House.
  According to an article that appeared in the Washington Post on March 
12, lobbyists gamed the system in the House as the bill was being 
drafted in order to keep the rules out that they wanted to take effect 
and keep the rules in that they wanted to stop.
  First, they started with an effective date of November 9, arguing 
that the day after the election had significance for pending 
regulations, but then they changed the date from November 9 to November 
20. This is in the House.
  Why did they do that? Why was it November 20 instead of November 19 
or November 18 or November 21? Because one Member of the House whose 
support they wanted had a rule that he cared about, that he wanted to 
go into effect. It was a marketing order for borrowing. He had been 
waiting for that marketing order. He did not want 
[[Page S4632]] that one caught up in the moratorium. That one took 
effect November 19. So he said, ``Well, make it November 20 and now you 
have my support.'' So they picked the first day after that particular 
rule took effect. Forget the fact that the moratorium blocks all other 
marketing orders, like cherries or sugar or flowers or anything else.
  The principle involved in this decision was not that marketing orders 
should be exempt because they are central to the promotion and sale of 
key commodities; the principle that was operating in this case was the 
principle of political expedience, picking the date based on the desire 
to protect the rule for one particular Member.
  Well, I have marketing orders that I am interested in, too. We have a 
cherry marketing order that will affect cherry production. We are 
number one in the entire market for cherries in the country. That one 
probably will not take effect--if it does--until later this year. Well, 
is my marketing order less important than that Representative's 
marketing order? Is one more significant than the other? Are we going 
to say, well, we will exempt this and that, and pluck this from the sky 
and pull this one from the ground, and we will exempt particular rules 
from this moratorium where a Member has a particular interest, out of 
thousands that are pending? Is that the way we are going to legislate? 
That is the way this bill was done in the House--cover barley, and then 
we will get another vote for a moratorium. It is arbitrary in the way 
it was done, both in the House and here.
  There were a lot of other exemptions that were considered. Lobbyists 
from many sides bid for exemption. But the House rejected every 
exemption concerning rules to protect public health and safety and 
accepted numerous amendments to protect specific business-related 
items.
  For instance, the House exempted from the moratorium a rule that was 
published on December 2 relative to the conditional release of textile 
imports; a rule that related to customs modernization; a rule that 
related to the transfer of spectrum by the Federal Communications 
Commission, and so forth. If you can catch the interest of a Member, 
you can get your rule exempted from the moratorium. I do not have any 
problem with exempting from the moratorium any of those rules. I am all 
in favor of that, because I do not think the moratorium makes sense. It 
is not as though I do not think we ought to exempt textiles or we 
should not exempt spectrum. I think we should have a rational way of 
legislating, which is to state a principle, not just willy-nilly pick 
items out of the blue which may have particular appeal to a particular 
Member.
  One of the reasons this moratorium did not make sense is because it 
would catch up rules such as those enumerated. But it is going to catch 
up a lot of other rules which make sense, as well. It is not just a 
textile rule that it catches up. Well, that was exempt. It catches up a 
rule that finally gives us some sanity in the area of bottled water.
  The water bottlers have been waiting for a decade for this rule; they 
want the rule. They have been asking for a rule to label bottled water 
so that the public knows what it is getting. It says ``spring water'' 
or ``artesian water'' or ``seltzer water,'' ``well water,'' or whatever 
it is. The bottling industry wants rules so the public is not misled. 
They want rules in order to restrict the amount of particular chemicals 
that can be in bottled water. They have been waiting for this rule. 
They wrote us in strong opposition to this moratorium, because it 
catches up rules that they have been waiting for.
  Now, the textile folks are exempted, and it is fine with me. But how 
about the water bottlers; they are not exempted? What is the rationale 
for this? What is the reason behind that? Where is the fairness behind 
that?
  Now, as the House bill came over to the Senate, this is the way it 
looked. It applies to all regulatory actions, big and small. It does 
not even permit agencies to receive comments from the public on pending 
rulemaking. This is the House bill, I emphasize. This is the one we are 
going to face in conference. All regulatory actions are stopped in the 
House bill, not just final regs. Agencies are not able to receive 
comment, issue guidance, nothing; stop it, everything. I do not know 
what we expect the folks at the agencies to do this year. Nonetheless, 
everything stops in its tracks. They cannot receive comments from the 
public--a grinding halt. It applies retroactively. It indiscriminately 
exempts some rules and not others. It does not exempt any rule 
pertaining to public health and safety, except it has an imminent 
threat stamp.
  Well, as the Senator from Ohio says, the definition of ``imminent'' 
is not there. So we have to try to figure out now whether or not the 
President is going to exempt a rule that the Product Safety Commission 
is going to promulgate on bike helmets. Is that an imminent threat? 
They are looking at a rule which will require that items which are sold 
as bike helmets to protect the heads of bicyclists from injury, in 
fact, be structurally strong enough so that they will be able to 
perform that function. That is the Product Safety Commission that is 
doing that.
  The industry wants it; they want these regs. But is that an imminent 
threat? Is the President just supposed to pick some kind of decision 
out of the air? Does that depend upon what the prediction is as to how 
many people will die within what period of time? Is that imminent? Is 
it one person a year? If it averages one per month, is that imminent or 
not? If it averages 10 per month, is that imminent or not imminent?
  Choking toys. The Product Safety Commission, I think, has already 
issued regulations on toys which are a threat to children under 4 years 
old, which they can choke on. Now, is it imminent or is it not 
imminent? We do not know. But none of these are exempted. The bike 
helmets are not exempted. The E. coli bacteria is not exempted. The 
choking toy is not exempted. But we have exemptions for all kinds of 
other things that are more business-related exemptions, such as sale of 
spectrum by the FCC, or the textile regulation; those are specifically 
exempted in the House bill. But nothing relating to public health and 
safety is exempted. Instead, there is an imminent threat requirement 
that the President has to apply.
  There is one other thing the House bill does. Again, I emphasize this 
is what we are going to face in conference. The Senate bill makes some 
changes--the underlying Senate bill. But the House bill extends 
statutory and judicial deadlines. In other words, where there is a rule 
which is required by law, be it judicial or statutory, to come into 
effect as of a particular date, in that case, the bill says, well, we 
want it to be longer by 5 months. The moratorium for December 31 is not 
good enough if the deadline for a rule has been set by a statute or by 
a court. There, for some reason--totally inexplicable to me--the 
deadline is extended 5 months beyond December 31. Mind you, if Congress 
set a statutory deadline for a rule to come into effect, and that one 
is moratoriumed until December 31, that becomes May 31. I do not know 
that logic. They tried to change that one in committee in the Senate 
version without any success. We never got an explanation as to the 
logic of that one. You would think if we set a deadline for a rule to 
come into effect, we would treat ourselves as well, at least when there 
is no such deadline for a regulation coming into effect. But we do not. 
This moratorium, I believe, is a diversion from the real job of 
drafting tough regulatory reform legislation.
  We hope that we could just set this moratorium idea aside and get on 
with the real work of regulatory reform, the real work that the 
committees of this Congress are doing, which the Governmental Affairs 
Committee did by unanimous vote in adopting the Roth regulatory reform 
approach. Another committee of this Senate is doing work on regulatory 
reform. That is the serious work. Timely item review, cost benefit 
analysis,
 looking at each regulation, to weigh whether or not its benefits 
outweigh the costs.

  In our bill, having a legislative veto provision--which I think is a 
very important and significant approach, one that I have supported 
since I got here. As a matter of fact, one which I supported before I 
got here.
  When the moratorium bill that the committee took up, S. 219, came 
before the committee for markup, it was a 
[[Page S4633]] doozy of a markup. There were 22 amendments at our 
markup. I want to go through this markup briefly just to show how 
arbitrary this bill before the Congress is.
  Senator Cochran offered an amendment to exempt any action taken to 
ensure the safety and soundness of a farm credit system institution, or 
to protect the farm credit insurance fund. That amendment was accepted.
  Senator Pryor offered an amendment to exempt any agency action that 
establishes, modifies, opens, closes, or conducts a regulatory program 
for a commercial, recreational, or subsistence activity relating to 
hunting, fishing, or camping, if a Federal law prohibits such activity 
in the absence of agency action. That amendment was designed to exempt 
a regulation that permits duck hunting season to open. That was 
accepted.
  Senator Akaka offered an amendment to exempt the promulgation of any 
rule or regulation relating to aircraft overflights on national parks 
by the Secretary of Transportation or the Secretary of the Interior 
pursuant to the procedures specified in the advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking, published on March 17, 1994. That amendment was accepted.
  Senator Glenn offered an amendment to exempt ``any regulatory action 
to improve air safety including such an action to improve airworthiness 
of aircraft engines.'' That amendment was accepted. Senator Glenn 
offered another amendment to exempt any regulatory action that would 
upgrade safety and training standards for commuter airlines to those of 
major airlines. That amendment was accepted.
  Senator Thompson offered an amendment to exempt any clarification of 
existing responsibilities regarding highway safety warning devises 
which was intended to cover railroad crossings. That amendment was 
accepted.
  Senator Glenn offered an amendment to exempt any regulatory action to 
bring compensation to Persian Gulf war veterans for disabilities for 
undiagnosed illnesses as provided by the Persian Gulf Veterans Benefits 
Act. That amendment was accepted.
  Senator Glenn offered an amendment to exempt regulatory action by the 
EPA to protect the public from exposure from lead in house paints, 
soil, or drinking water. That amendment was accepted.
  Now, each of those amounts was offered in an effort to exempt 
particular rules from coverage of the moratorium. I support each one of 
those amendments. They are fine. The problem is not that there is a 
problem with the amendments that were adopted. The problem is 
amendments which nobody offers to cover important regulation which have 
as much claim to be exempted from this moratorium as the ones that we 
exempted. Certain Senators, familiar with certain rules, offer an 
exemption from the moratorium. It gets adopted. That is fine. What 
about the ones where we are not familiar, acting on a matter of weeks 
upon thousands and thousands of regulations that get caught up in the 
net? They are caught up in a moratorium. How many rules are there that 
are just as important as the ones that we exempt that are still going 
to be subject to the moratorium, and with similar or even more serious 
consequences than these rules? There are hundreds of these rules, 
potentially, since we have been told there is perhaps 800 to 900 
significant regulatory actions in any one year.
  All these amendments identified about eight, eight that some Senators 
are familiar with. How many others? We do not have the vaguest idea. 
Some of them that we do know about we tried to offer amendments on. 
These are some of the ones that failed. See if there is any coherence 
to this.
  Senator Glenn offered an amendment to exempt any regulatory action to 
reduce pathogens in meat and poultry taken by the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That one was 
defeated. We accepted the exemption for lead paint. That one was 
adopted. But when it came to a rule to protect against tainted meat, 
that exemption from the moratorium was rejected.
  Now, maybe somebody can come up with a logic here as to why we should 
proceed without a moratorium to a rule on lead paint, but we should not 
proceed without a moratorium to a rule which protects citizens from 
tainted meat.
  I think we ought to proceed with both unless on a one-by-one basis 
Congress, pursuant to a legislative veto, feels that a regulation is 
not consistent with the law that drives it or is not worth the cost.
  That is the alternative approach to this moratorium. That is the 
coherent approach. That is the approach where we will be forced to 
rationally look at any regulation, one by one, not lumping them all 
together in one bushel basket and stopping the whole bushel, except for 
one or two or three, up to eight, which people have picked out of the 
bushel, but where we deal rationally with regulations one on one.
  Then Senator Glenn offered an amendment to exempt any regulatory 
action by the EPA that relates to control of microbe risks in drinking 
water supplies. That is the one that addresses the concern about 
cryptosporidium in public drinking water. That was rejected.
  Is the lead paint threat more imminent than the cryptosporidium 
threat? That is the decision of this committee, and, therefore, one is 
going to be subject to a moratorium and the other one is exempt. It 
beats me what the logic is. I do not see it.
  I offered an amendment to exempt any significant regulatory action 
the principal purpose of which is to protect or improve human health or 
safety and for which a cost-benefit analysis has been completed and the 
head of the agency taking such action has concluded, to the extent 
permitted by law, that the benefits justify the cost. That one was 
rejected on a 7 to 7 vote.
  There is so much inconsistency in this bill that it is really the 
totally wrong way for Congress to legislate. One rule is exempted just 
in case it might get caught by the moratorium, but a similar rule is 
not exempted because, well, it appears that it would not be caught by 
the moratorium. There is no rhyme or reason to why the committee 
specifically exempts air safety regulations and lead paint regulations, 
but refuses to specifically exempt meat safety and cryptosporidium 
regulations. There is no rhyme nor reason to that.
  Surely we want to protect ourselves from dangerous situations in the 
air, from lead paint, from dangerous meat, and from cryptosporidium. We 
want to protect ourselves from all. Where is the logic?
  Now, I offered an amendment which the committee accepted. Here is the 
way this amendment read: ``We will exempt from the moratorium, 
regulations that establish or enforce statutory rights that prohibit 
discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, age, national 
origin or handicap or disability status.'' That one was accepted. Those 
are exempt from the moratorium.
  But then I offered an amendment rejected by the committee--I cannot 
figure the logic it--to exempt any significant regulatory action which 
enforces constitutional rights of an individual. That one we did not 
exempt. Statutory rights that prohibit discrimination are exempt, but 
regulations to enforce constitutional rights are not exempt from the 
moratorium.
  The committee accepted an amendment by Senator McCain to exempt 
actions that ``limit it to matters relating to negotiated rulemaking 
carried out between Indian tribal governments and at agency under the 
`Indian Self-Determination Act Amendments of 1994'.'' Fair enough; no 
problem with that exemption.
  But how about an amendment to exempt any regulation issued pursuant 
to the consensual product of regulatory negotiation--not just the ones 
relating to Indian tribal governments but any product of regulatory 
negotiation; not just that product?
  So it went, and so we have just a hodgepodge of exemptions that defy 
consistency or rationality.
  We also add items of coverage to the moratorium. Senator Grassley 
offered an amendment that the committee adopted which added the 
interagency memorandum of agreement concerning wetlands determinations 
to the moratorium. Mind you, this is just a interagency memorandum. 
This is not a regulation or rule, this is just a memorandum between 
agencies. That one is added to the moratorium on regulations. So that 
one is suspended during the moratorium period.
  [[Page S4634]] Senator Stevens offered an amendment to extend the 
moratorium to include any action that ``* * * restricts commercial use 
of land under the control of a Federal agency''--any action, not just a 
regulation or rule, any action restricting the ``commercial use of land 
under the control of a Federal agency.''
  We are still trying to figure out the ramifications of that 
amendment. Already the results are pretty stunning.
  Under the Stevens amendment, the Federal agencies in charge of 
protecting Federal lands would presumably not be able to carry out 
enforcement proceedings against individual actions that could despoil 
the land or endanger human life. For instance, the National Park 
Service could presumably not close a dangerous pass in a national park 
because of drifting snow; it could not stop hikers using certain paths 
in a park that may be dangerous because of bears or high water.
  The Department of the Interior has reviewed this amendment. Here is 
what it predicts if this amendment ever became law:

       The Bureau of Land Management would not have authority to 
     enforce existing permits or plans of operations for mineral 
     leases; the Bureau of Reclamation would not be able to 
     regulate boating, swimming and fishing on Federal land near 
     dams and reservoirs; the Fish and Wildlife Service would not 
     be able to regulate a variety of recreational activities on 
     wildlife refuges; the National Park Service would not be able 
     to regulate activities that might impair visitor enjoyment or 
     protect the parks; the Department of Defense could not obtain 
     additional public lands for military purposes without 
     qualifying for Presidential exemption.

  It goes on and on. Those are the impacts of the amendment just 
adopted in committee, which is added to a moratorium on regulation.
  I just cannot believe that the members of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee ever intended that the Government be so limited in its 
ability to protect its people and its natural resources, but that is 
what we did in reporting this bill to the full Senate.
  As I said, this bill also has a rather strange provision added in 
committee concerning statutory and judicial deadlines. That provision 
adds an additional 5 months to the length of a moratorium where 
deadlines have been established by either statute or a court case with 
respect to a regulation.
  The first question is why would we want to include deadlines in the 
moratorium bill in the first place--particularly statutory deadlines 
where we, in Congress, have stated explicitly the date by which we want 
a rule issued? But, second, why should regulations with statutory or 
judicially imposed deadlines be singled out for an additional 5-months 
moratorium?
  When I asked the question the answer that I got was that it would be 
too much for the agencies to handle all of the proposed and final 
regulations coming into effect at the same time when the moratorium 
ends, as well as the deadlines. But that does not make any sense. The 
lifting of a moratorium on proposed and final regulations does not 
force the agencies to take any scheduled action with respect to those 
regulations, and to the extent that the agencies do take action they 
will have the entire period of the moratorium to prepare for taking 
those actions. Moreover, when I asked whether any agency had asked for 
this kind of consideration, so to speak, the answer was ``no.''
  But the report of the committee is just as telling. The report 
contains a litany of various selected rules that are referenced for 
purposes of determining whether or not they are covered by the 
moratorium. The committee members did not consider these rules 
individually. Most of them--maybe all of them--were not even mentioned 
in the committee markup or in documents circulated to committee 
members. Yet they appear in the report as though the committee acted 
intentionally and knowingly on them.
  Here is one--this is from the committee report.

       The Department of Transportation is currently considering 
     whether alternative standards to the existing HM-181 
     standards are appropriate for open-head fibre drums used for 
     the transportation of liquids. If the Department of 
     Transportation determines that such alternative standards are 
     appropriate, that decision could result in eliminating an 
     unnecessary regulatory burden on the fibre-drum industry.

  What is wrong with that? Nothing. That is great. I am all for 
exempting them from the moratorium. I do not want any unnecessary 
regulatory burden on the fibre-drum industry more than I want it on any 
industry. But here is a typical exception from the moratorium. It 
suddenly appears in the committee report. We never discussed this. It 
is just helter-skelter, willy-nilly. Can you get a Senator to put a 
little reference in there to exempting some regulation from a 
moratorium?
  Here is another one. Similarly, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms is about to issue final regulations governing trade practices 
under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act that could simplify 
alcohol promotional practices. If so, these regulations could be 
excluded from the moratorium under this provision. Terrific, I am all 
for it.
  What about the hundreds of others that should be excluded from the 
moratorium that are not named in here? What is the origin of naming one 
or two regulations, unless we want to go through these things in some 
rational way and name hundreds of regulations that ought to be exempted 
that will reduce burdens on industry?
  How about that bottled water regulation that the bottled water 
industry has been waiting for, for a decade, one decade? Let me read 
the letter from the Water Bottlers Association.
  ``On behalf of the Bottled Water Association I am providing, at your 
request, information. * * * Et cetera, et cetera.

       In addition to this final rule, I will describe two 
     additional amendments to the bottled water standard of 
     quality which, according to FDA, will be published this 
     spring. IBWA strongly supports the finalization of these 
     public health standards as well.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The December 1, 1994 final rule, which was identified at 
     your committee hearing last Wednesday, significantly adds to 
     the number of standard of quality levels that must be met by 
     a bottled water product and as a result, will be a 
     significant benefit to American consumers. Briefly, it 
     establishes or modifies allowable levels in bottled water for 
     9 inorganic chemicals (IOCs) and 26 synthetic organic 
     chemicals (SOCs) including 11 synthetic volatile organic 
     chemicals (VOCs), 14 pesticides, and polychlorinated 
     biphenyls (PCBs). The final rule presently becomes effective 
     on May 1, 1995. Once effective, this final rule provides even 
     greater assurance to American consumers that the bottled 
     water they drink is the safest in the world. IBWA strongly 
     supported FDA's efforts to finalize these quality levels and 
     has consistently worked with FDA to develop and implement 
     these rules. While IBWA members already voluntarily test for 
     these substances, as part of a voluntary annual inspection 
     program which is a condition of membership, making this final 
     rule effective will ensure that the entire bottled water 
     supply sold in the United States, from both domestic and 
     foreign firms, conform to these valuable public health and 
     safety standards.

  This is their conclusion. I think it will resonate with every Member 
of the Senate.

       The three standard of quality rules described herein have a 
     material impact on the safety of all bottled water sold in 
     this country. The standard of identity rules ensure that 
     consumers are not mislead and legitimate bottled water 
     producers not injured due to false or misleading names given 
     to specific types of bottled water. IBWA and its members have 
     devoted enormous time, technical resources, and money for 
     over a decade to develop these federal standards. It would be 
     a major setback to the bottled water industry and consumers 
     to have these federal rules, so close to finalization, 
     arbitrarily frozen. IBWA strongly supports the efforts of you 
     and others to ensure that this highly damaging possibility 
     does not become a reality.

  Presumably maybe we could have exempted bottled water standards. Or 
maybe somebody can argue that there is an imminent health hazard that 
these address. It is pretty hard to argue. These have been in the works 
for a decade. What is so arbitrary about this bill, what is so unfair, 
is that it singles out some, picks them out of the blue, some pending 
regulations and says we will exempt these. We will exempt the textile 
regulations from this moratorium but these other 800, well, who knows 
about them? Let me emphasize. I am familiar with that textile 
regulation. I want to exempt it from the moratorium, too. But what 
about the other hundreds that have an equal claim to be exempt from the 
moratorium?
  What about mammograms? On this floor on a bipartisan basis we had a 
law passed that required high-quality standards for mammograms and that 

[[Page S4635]] they be uniform. We had speeches from Members all over 
this floor saying how important it was that mammograms in this country 
meet certain high-quality standards. We lose thousands of women 
unnecessarily to breast cancer because we do not have high-quality 
mammograms in this country. And we all sit around here and stood around 
here and made speeches as to how critically necessary it was that we 
get these standards in place. Where are they? Caught in a moratorium. 
Or are they caught? Is it imminent? Is it is legally imminent? Is there 
less of a claim for an exemption from a moratorium for a mammogram 
regulation than it is for the duck hunting season? I have to share with 
Senator Glenn the same strong feeling. We do not want to mess up the 
duck hunting season. So we should exempt them. I have no problem with 
doing that. But what about mammograms? Is there less of a claim? I do 
not think so.
  This bill has been turned into a vehicle for special interest 
pleading. That is what is so fundamentally disturbing about this 
moratorium. Who gets in and who gets out depends on whether you can get 
a Member's ear or attention and time to get a particular request in. In 
some cases it is a request to be excluded from the moratorium. In 
others it is a request to be covered by the moratorium. What about 
those who do not have the lobbyists or the representatives to 
adequately argue their case? What about them?
  This represents arbitrary Government at its worst. What is ironic is 
that it is part of an effort to reduce the intrusion of arbitrary 
Government, an effort that I share.
  There is going to be a substitute offered, the principle of which is 
an important principle and it is a principle that I very strongly 
support. The principle is that we as a Congress should be forced to 
look at the product of our laws and not just write general laws. We as 
a Congress should be forced to look at regulations that come out of 
these laws we write, not simply vote on the law and then move on to the 
next problem and think we have solved the first one. Because the 
regulations that are spawned by our laws can frequently create as many 
problems as they can cure.
  I came to this Senate believing in legislative veto. And I think the 
first legislative veto in the 1980's was one that I cosponsored for 
Senator Boren, a so-called Levin-Boren legislative veto on the Federal 
Trade Commission. We passed it. We would have liked to have had a 
generic one, by the way, but the Supreme Court intervened and created 
some problems in the way it was done.
  So I am all for legislative veto. I think it ought to be done the 
right way. I have some suggested changes in the one that is going to be 
offered as a substitute. But make no mistake about it. We are going to 
face this moratorium again in conference even if we substitute a 
legislative veto for this across-the-board regulatory moratorium. That 
does not unhappily put an end to this arbitrary and reckless approach 
to Government. We are going to face it again in conference.
  It is important that this Senate go on record, not only as favoring 
the alternative, which is a legislative veto that will be offered, a 
totally different approach, one that looks at regulations one at a time 
that forces us in the legislative body to do our work instead of 
capturing all of the regulatory process in the executive branch in a 
net, willy-nilly. It is a very different approach. I hope we adopt 
something like the one that is going to be offered by Senator Nickles 
and Senator Reid. But it is also important in adopting that substitute 
that we put to rest, that we end, the threat of a moratorium which we 
are still going to face in conference, which I believe is one of the 
most arbitrary pieces of legislation that I have seen in my 16 years in 
the Senate.
  I want to commend Senator Glenn for the effort that he has led 
against this moratorium. Hopefully tomorrow we will take step one in 
putting this thing to rest. But he is very right in alerting us to the 
fact that this is just step one. If we do in fact adopt this 
alternative approach that we not proceed along with this broad across-
the-board regulatory moratorium but instead move to a legislative veto 
approach, that it is just phase one in this effort. Phase two will be 
in a conference where the folks who support the moratorium have already 
indicated publicly that they are going to try to get that moratorium 
enacted.
  Mr. President, again with thanks to Senator Glenn for leading the 
effort to defeat this moratorium and to get an alternative approach 
utilizing the legislative veto or regulatory reform, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Texas.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David 
Davis, a Fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges during the 
consideration of S. 219.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to follow through on some of the 
remarks of the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, if I might. Did we 
reserve the remainder of our time on this side so we do not have it 
charged against us?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I listened with care to comments of the 
Senator from Michigan. I think he raised some legitimate points 
regarding both the House bill and also the Senate bill, S. 219, which 
came from the committee.
  At the conclusion of his remarks, he got to the point that I would 
like to speak to; that is, the Nickles-Reid substitute which he 
indicated would most assuredly answer many of the questions that he had 
raised, that it constituted the concept of legislative veto that would 
enable the House and Senate to examine these regulations each one by 
themselves to determine whether they could conform to the intent of the 
legislative branch which pass the laws in the first place. I think that 
is the bottom line here. That is the question.
  We should be able to rely upon the majority of the House and Senate 
to understand what we intended when we passed a law, and whether the 
regulations being issued by the regulatory agencies conform to our 
original intent. I suspect in most of those cases we will find that we 
agree with the regulations being proposed. But in those cases where we 
do not, we will have the opportunity to say so, and during the debate 
indicate why we think they perhaps do not conform to our original 
intent and, therefore, how the agencies can rewrite the regulations.
  Most of the consequences of the House bill, or Senate bill, S. 219, 
that the Senator spoke of are answered, it seems to me, by the Nickles-
Reid substitute. You have concerns expressed I think with either a 
moratorium or a lookback except that during the lookback to November 9, 
1994, the regulations remain in effect. And so there should be no real 
concern because those regulations remain extant and they are only 
stopped if the House and Senate decide that they need to be changed. 
And the 45-day moratorium with the exceptions for emergencies and for 
public health and safety reasons that require an immediate 
implementation of a regulation is not really much of a delay 
considering the fact that many regulations, most regulations are 
delayed 30 days from implementation anyway. It seems to me the 
opportunity to look at these regulations and determine whether they 
conform to congressional intent is good and that we give up very little 
because the regulations already in effect remain in effect until we 
look at them and those regulations which are not emergencies are only 
delayed for a period of 45 days.
  The concern that many of us have is twofold: The cost of regulations 
to our families, to our businesses and to society in general and also 
the burden of regulations today cry out for solution.
  There are two charts here which I would like to briefly use to 
demonstrate that point. The pages of the Federal Register is some rough 
measure of the burden of these regulations, and we are almost up now to 
67,000 pages in the Federal Register. You can see from the year 1976 
that regulations went all the way up to 73,000 pages during the 1978 
and 1979 period, down to a low during 1986 of about 44,000 pages in the 
Federal Register; last year, almost 
[[Page S4636]] 65,000, and as I said now almost 67,000 pages in the 
Federal Register as of this date.
  And by the way, that is pretty fine print so we are not talking about 
regulations just of one or two to a page. This demonstrates in at least 
some gross way the size of the burden that we are imposing on people.
  I defy anybody to understand what is in all of these regulations. We 
spend billions of dollars trying to comply with the law. We all 
remember as school kids we learned the phrase ``ignorance of the law is 
no excuse,'' but in fact Americans, all of us, are ignorant of the law. 
We cannot possibly know what is in all of these regulations and comply 
with them, and we hire people to help us with that, spending billions 
of dollars in the process.
  That gets to the second chart, Mr. President. The cost of Government 
per household 2 years ago, 1993, for the Federal regulatory burden was 
$6,000 compared to the Federal tax burden of $12,000. As a matter of 
fact, depending upon which study you look at, the cost by the end of 
1993 of complying with Federal regulations overall, counting businesses 
as well, was just about equal to the Federal tax burden.
  So if you include businesses as well as families in this, what you 
find is that we are paying as much to comply with regulations as we are 
money to the Federal Treasury. In rough dollar terms, about $1 trillion 
we pay into the Federal Treasury, about $1.3 trillion, as I recall. And 
the cost of complying with regulations is somewhere in that rough area, 
of roughly $1 trillion a year.
  It is hard for any of us to comprehend what $1 trillion is, but for 
the average household we can understand $6,000 a year to comply with 
Federal regulations. We know that it is hard to know what is in them 
all. We know that it is expensive and burdensome. We know that they are 
not all necessary.
  That is what our effort is all about, to have the Congress have at 
least the opportunity to look at them before they go into effect, to 
say, yes, that is needed, that is what we intended, let it go. Or, wait 
a minute, this goes far beyond what the Congress intended when we 
passed this law. This is not the kind of burden that we intended to 
impose upon society, upon our families, upon small businesses, for 
example. Or for some other reason to say, time out, hold this 
regulation up; this is not an appropriate extension of the law.
  Mr. President, I just want to conclude with this story. When I first 
went to law school, I remembered thinking about the difference between 
administrative law and statutory law. I had never had occasion to think 
about that distinction before. The legislative branch passes laws, the 
executive branch signs those laws and then implements them. That is 
what I had learned in high school and in college.
  However, I came to appreciate a distinction, that when you get to the 
way it really works in the real world with the Federal Government, you 
have the legislative branch passing laws that are usually not very many 
pages. Now, we like to talk about all these big laws and most of them 
are not that big. And then we tend to forget about it. This is what we 
intend to happen or to prevent from happening. It is then the job of 
the executive branch of Government to translate that into all of the 
rules and regulations by which the law is implemented.
  A funny thing happens. The regulators end up taking far more space in 
the Federal Register writing many, many times the number of words to 
explain precisely what it is that Congress meant. And Congress does not 
go back and look at that until constituents come to us and say, ``Do 
you realize what you did when you passed this law? Do you realize what 
this regulator is making me do?'' Frequently we say, ``Well, now, that 
is not what we intended.'' But we never get around to changing the 
regulations. We literally have to go back and amend the law.
  Well, this allows us a more efficient procedure, a shortcut, if you 
will, an opportunity before the fact, before the regulations hurt 
people to say, time out, Mr. Regulator friend of ours here in the 
executive branch, you are going beyond what we intended when we passed 
the law. So scale it back in this regard and then that will be what we 
intended and that is what our constituents then can live with.
  I believe that this is long overdue. I have constituents back home 
who have pleaded with me to please try to do something to solve this 
problem. And I think that in the Nickles-Reid amendment we have really 
come to a good balance. We have found a way to look at old regulations 
and to consider new regulations and a way to ensure that they conform 
with congressional intent without preventing the executive branch 
through proper administration to deal with emergencies, to deal with 
public safety and the like. I think it is a good balance, and I think 
it is important for us to adopt this kind of approach. I am looking 
forward to the next day or two of debate hoping that we can get the 
Nickles-Reid substitute passed, go to conference with the House version 
of their bill, and quickly get a bill signed and sent to the President 
for his signature.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Nickles-Reid 
amendment. My friend and colleague from Arizona has done an excellent 
job of pointing out some of the burdens of regulation. I will not 
reiterate those, but I will make them a part of my full statement in 
the Record.
  He has talked about the annual costs and economic terms of 
regulations. This is a study--I understand done in 1992--by Thomas D. 
Hopkins on the regulatory policy in Canada and the United States. He is 
talking about billions of dollars, in 1991 dollars, and shows back in 
1977 they were running slightly under $550 billion, but at that time we 
projected that the 1995 burden would be about $600 billion annually.
  Now, as chairman of the Small Business Committee, I suppose the one 
thing that I hear most from small businesses in my State and in the 
other States I have visited is that you are killing us with all these 
regulations. We are in business to make money, to hire people, to 
provide a product or a service. How are we going to keep up with the 
minute details, the tremendous volume of directions that you are giving 
to us. How are we supposed to run our business and still read all this 
stuff?
  Now, before me, I have two stacks of regulations the Clinton 
administration has put forward since the election. I would have stacked 
them one on top of the other for more dramatic impact, but I am sure I 
would have been in violation of some regulation of OSHA because they 
could be very dangerous if you stacked up all of this material and put 
it where it could fall over on somebody. Unfortunately, it is the 
business person, the individual, the farmer, the retail store owner who 
is supposed to know everything that is in here.
  Oh, by the way, just received today, March 27, 1995. You think you 
have problems getting to sleep tonight. This is what you need to read 
today as the regulatory burden that the Government is proposing to put 
on you today.
  This is today's reading. The admonition that the problems of today 
are sufficient, do not worry about tomorrow; well, the Bible did not 
understand that the Federal Register could make the burdens of today as 
significant as this.
  But this is what the small business person is supposed to know and 
supposed to follow.
  The Clinton administration has proposed 4,300 regulatory actions and 
has some 2,000 final rules planned. This is going to enable this 
administration to surpass the dubious record of the Carter 
administration in the issuance of new regulations.
  Another way of looking at the volume of regulations is how many 
bureaucrats does it take to write the regulations? In 1970, we had 
28,000 people in the Federal bureaucracy telling us how to run our 
lives and what kind of regulations we have to obey. By today, glory be, 
that number has risen to 127,842 people trying to tell the small 
business person in my hometown, your hometown, or anyplace in this 
country how they live their lives and what they ought to do.
  Now, let me make clear as we begin this debate, we are not saying all 
regulations are bad. And I do not believe any of the proponents of this 
legislation or this amendment are going to say that. People still rely, 
as they 
[[Page S4637]] must, as they should, on the Government to provide basic 
functions to ensure that we have clean water to drink, ensure safe and 
effective medicines to take, and safe food to eat. I want to be able to 
rely on that. But the people I talk to, the people I am hearing, want 
Government brought under control. They are tired of looking at 
Government and seeing how it runs and thinking to themselves, ``You 
could never run a business that way.''
  The question I suggest, Mr. President, is how to get the best results 
from the regulations we must have? How do we use our finite resources 
best? If we waste time and effort and energy on complicated or unwise 
or overly prescribed regulations, we cannot put those resources and 
that time into being productive. It results in loss of jobs and a lower 
standard of living.
  We ought to take a look at these regulations and ask some important 
questions. And that is what this 45-day period under the Nickles-Reid 
amendment would permit us to do. It would enable us to say: Would this 
regulation actually improve things or would it endanger lives? Could 
the same amount of spending be applied better in another way? Is this 
regulation the best way to allocate the resources in our globally 
competitive economy?
  Let me just take two examples that might be under the heading of risk 
assessment.
  According to the Office of Management and Budget, under the EPA's 
hazardous waste disposal ban, $4.2 billion would have to be spent 
before one single premature death is prevented. Again according to OMB, 
under EPA's formaldehyde occupational exposure limit, $119 billion to 
prevent one premature death. That is not to say that it is not a 
laudable goal to prevent deaths that would result from exposure to 
hazardous substances. The question we must ask is whether this is the 
best way to allocate these billions of dollars in resources? If 
resources were used a different way, could we not, in fact, save more 
lives and prevent more illness?
  The money spent complying with regulations might be better spent. If 
society could take the resources spent to comply with the formaldehyde 
occupational exposure limit, $119 billion, and spent it on developing 
new lifesaving drug therapies, then 331 new drugs could be developed 
and brought to market. If the $92 billion that it will take to avoid 
one death under the atrazine/alachlor drinking water standard were used 
for cancer research, we could quadruple the research budget at the 
National Cancer Institute for the next 12 years. If we took the $168.2 
million that it is estimated to cost to avoid just one death under the 
benzene nesahp standard, we could put 3,064 more police officers on the 
street.
  Let me give you just a couple of examples, Mr. President, of some of 
the things that we have heard about before. I think our colleagues have 
heard about how dangerous it is to rescue a colleague, a fellow worker, 
who is in danger of death in a collapsed trench. Senator Kempthorne has 
talked about it.
  My one of my favorite columnist Dave Barry, wrote in ``Wit's End'' 
about this story in Idaho. He said:
       But before we do anything, let's salute the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) office in Idaho for 
     its prompt action regarding. . .
       Improperly attired rescue personnel: Here's what happened, 
     according to an article in the Idaho Statesman.
       On May 11, two employees of DeBest Inc., a plumbing 
     company, were working at a construction site in Garden City, 
     Idaho, when they heard a backhoe operator yell for help. They 
     ran over, and found that the wall of a trench--which was not 
     dug by DeBest--had collapsed on a worker, pinning him under 
     dirt and covering his head.
       ``We could hear muffled screams,'' said one of the DeBest 
     employees.
       So the men jumped into the trench and dug the victim out, 
     quite possibly saving his life.
       What do you think OSHA did about this? Do you think it gave 
     the rescuers a medal? If so, I can see why you are a mere 
     lowlife taxpayer, as opposed to an OSHA executive. What OSHA 
     did--I am not making this up--was fine DeBest Inc. $7,875. 
     Yes. OSHA said that the two men should not have gone into the 
     trench without (1) putting on approved hard hats, and (2) 
     taking steps to ensure that other trench walls did not 
     collapse, and water did not seep in. Of course this might 
     have resulted in some discomfort for the suffocating victim 
     (``Hang in there! We should have the OSHA trench-seepage-
     prevention guidelines here within hours!''). But that is the 
     price you pay for occupational health and safety.
       Unfortunately, after DeBest Inc. complained to Idaho Sen. 
     Dirk Kempthorne, OSHA backed off on the fines. Nevertheless 
     this incident should serve as a warning to would-be rescuers 
     out there to comply with all federal regulations, including 
     those that are not yet in existence, before attempting to 
     rescue people. Especially if these people are in, say, a 
     burning OSHA office.
  But let me tell you what OSHA came up with. They did repeal the fine. 
They pushed it through in the first place, and then they pulled it 
back. And now OSHA has decided to provide for that.
  So if you are thinking about a rescue situation, and here you are, 
this is any worker, this is any small contractor on a hazardous site, 
you have to know this before you try to rescue somebody.
  This is from the Federal Register of Tuesday, December 27, 1994, 
volume 58, page 66,613--that will tell you something. And I quote:
       (f) No citation may be issued to an employer because of a 
     rescue activity undertaken by an employee of that employer 
     with respect to an individual in imminent danger unless:
       (1)(i) Such employee is designated or assigned by the 
     employer to have responsibility to perform or assist in 
     rescue operations, and
       (ii) the employer fails to provide protection of the safety 
     and health of such employee, including failing to provide 
     appropriate training and rescue equipment, or
       (2)(i) such employee is directed by the employer to perform 
     rescue activities in the course of carrying out the 
     employee's job duties, and
       (ii) the employer fails to provide protection of the safety 
     and health of such employee, including failing to provide 
     appropriate training and rescue equipment; or
       (3)(i) such employee is employed in a workplace that 
     requires the employee to carry out duties that are directly 
     related to a workplace operation where the likelihood of 
     life-threatening accidents is foreseeable, such as a 
     workplace operation where employees are located in confined 
     spaces or trenches, handle hazardous waste, respond to 
     emergency situations, perform excavations, or perform 
     construction over water; and
       (ii) such employee has not been designated or assigned to 
     perform or assist in rescue operations and voluntarily elects 
     to rescue such an individual; and
       (iii) the employer has failed to instruct employees not 
     designated or assigned to perform or assist in rescue 
     operations of the arrangements for rescue, not to attempt 
     rescue, and of the hazards of attempting rescue without 
     adequate training or equipment.
       (4) For purposes of this policy, the term ``imminent 
     danger'' means the existence of any condition or practice 
     that could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious 
     physical harm before such condition or practice ban be 
     abated.
  And I close the quote there.
  Is that not refreshing to know what the good Samaritan must know 
before he or she rescues somebody's life?
  Mr. President, I think that is the kind of thing that, if it came up 
here for a 45-day look, we could say, ``I don't think so.''
  I do not think we really need to go into all that detail. I do not 
think we really need to have everybody in America read this in case 
they would become a good Samaritan and rescue somebody in serious, 
serious condition.
  These are the kind of things that are driving small businesses, 
individuals in all walks of life nuts in this country today.
  Another example: The head of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration testified before Congress the horror stories were not 
true. He testified OSHA does not require material safety sheets for the 
normal use of consumer products, and workers must be informed of risks 
only when they are regularly exposed to high levels of substances that 
actually pose health risks.
  This is a copy of a citation issued last July to a specialty food 
shop in Evanston, IL, for a serious violation and a proposed $2,500 
fine. What is the violation? The company did not have a written hazard 
communication program. The primary chemicals used are used in the 
kitchen and bathroom areas. The chemicals used that were so dangerous 
were not limited to but included automatic dishwashing detergent and 
bleach. And for failure to have a hazardous notification--this is a 
serious violation and ``the employer did not develop, implement and/or 
maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication which 
describes how the criteria will be met.''
  As I said, the primary chemicals used were automatic dishwashing 
detergent and bleach. My goodness, I used automatic dishwashing 
detergent this 
[[Page S4638]] morning. I did not have a hazard notification. Am I in 
imminent danger? I do not think so.
  But, Mr. President, businesses across the country, small companies, 
are in imminent danger of being hit with a $2,500 fine if they do not 
have that kind of written hazardous communication warning them about 
dishwashers and bleaches and automatic detergent.
  I think these problems are what the bill, as amended by the Nickles-
Reid amendment, intends to fix. Under this bill, Congress is held 
accountable, as it should be, for delegating responsibility to 
implement regulations. This measure would give Congress 45 days to 
review significant regulations and to pass a joint resolution of 
disapproval to block the implementation. The 45-day layover adds to the 
checks and balances between the legislative branch and the executive 
branch by bringing back to Congress major regulations so that we can 
see if they really do what we meant and, second, if we meant what we 
said, and, third, are they unnecessarily restrictive or proscriptive?
  Too long we in Congress have taken the credit for solving problems. 
We have somebody come in and talk about regulations and we say, ``Oh, 
well, I'll get after somebody and we won't have to have you comply with 
that particular provision.'' But rather than try to come in after, 
would it not make sense for us to take a good hard look up front? That 
is what Congress needs to do.
  Frankly, I think that a 45-day period before Congress will have a 
very salutary effect because I just believe that many people in the 
executive agencies are getting the message: We are going to start 
taking a look at what you write, and if you do not want it to be 
overturned, let us make it simple. Do not write it so complicated that 
people cannot understand it.
  I have a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development notice to 
renters on lead-paint poisoning. These are all single-spaced sheets. 
There are four sheets. You tell me somebody who may be getting 
assistance in housing is going to be able to read all that and 
understand it? I tell you, I have gone through it and I have gotten 
lost and I have had some training, supposedly, in reading regulations.
  I do not think that we are serving our people well when we put 
burdens of tremendous regulations on them, kill a lot of trees to boot 
and wind up with systems that often do not make any sense.
  I believe one of the messages that the people of America gave us in 
November 1994 was: Enough is enough, get off our back. Stop weighing us 
down with these kinds of overly restrictive, proscriptive regulations.
  Regulations to protect health and safety, simple ones that people can 
understand, that is fine. We anticipate those when we pass legislation 
calling for regulations. It is time that we in Congress got back into 
the process and made sure that we stop some of this idiocy before it is 
placed on the backs of an already overburdened economy, dragged down by 
more than $600 billion worth of regulatory burden each year.
  For small businesses, the burden is disproportionately high. No one 
can say how many new small businesses were never started, or new 
products that never get developed, or how many jobs are destroyed 
because of the burden of regulations out of control.
  One group that thrives on the confusion and fear of regulators is 
regulatory consultants. All across this country consultants profit from 
helping businesses, especially small businesses, navigate the 
regulatory maze and figure out how to comply. A new and complex 
regulation is a boon to these consultants. In the environmental sector, 
the consulting market was estimated at $9 billion on 1993 by Farkas, 
Berkowicz & Co., a Washington-based consulting firm. These firms also 
conduct mock OSHA inspections and make inquiries to OSHA for their 
clients. Businesses do not want to call OSHA themselves because they 
are fearful it would trigger an inspection and fines. These are 
businesses who want to comply and are trying hard to comply, but are 
too afraid to call the agency themselves.
  Congress has been unaccountable for the burdens it creates. Most of 
the regulatory burden results from the ways laws are written here in 
Congress. Let me quote from the special report on regulatory overkill 
published by the Kansas City Business Journal:

       The Congress passes laws in a very sloppy manner. They 
     don't spell things out in great detail the way they should, 
     because that requires hard work and technical expertise, and 
     those are two things that are in short supply in Congress.

  Congress' reliance on agency bureaucrats to flesh out lawmakers' 
intentions gives unelected officials vast discretionary powers, but 
``oftentimes regulators are confused about what Congress wants and then 
Congress loses control over what regulators do. The regulators 
prescribe very unworkable solutions, and Congress says that's not what 
we had in mind, but by then, we're all stuck with the regulations.''

       Lost jobs, businesses that can't grow, products that can't 
     be developed, a loss of research and development. All of 
     these are fundamental dangers that affect not just business, 
     but ultimately every citizen in this country if the system is 
     allowed to continue unchecked.
  That problem, Mr. President, is what this bill seeks to fix. Under 
this bill, Congress is held accountable for the regulations that result 
from the laws it passes. The Nickles-Reid substitute will give Congress 
45 days to review significant regulations and a chance to pass a joint 
resolution of disapproval to block implementation.
  The Nickles substitute brings accountability to Congress and the 
Federal agencies.
  The 45-day layover adds to the checks and balances between the 
legislative branch and the executive branch by returning major 
regulations to Congress to see if they match congressional intent.
  For too long Congress has taken the credit for solving the crisis of 
the hour--but when the check comes due, Congress has ignored the costs 
to States, cities, business, and individuals--no more.
  This makes Congress accountable for its laws--many of our 
environmental laws do not allow the agency to take costs into 
consideration. Example: RCRA requires EPA to issue rules for land 
disposal of hazardous wastes that establish treatment standards using 
the best demonstrated available technology without regard for cost or 
risk.
  This makes Federal agencies accountable for their rules--too often 
EPA ignores the discression it has. Example: The Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 required major sources of hazardous air pollutants 
to engage in enhanced monitoring. EPA has taken these two words into a 
huge new regulatory program. EPA estimates the proposed rule would 
cover 30,000 sources at 10,000 facilities at a cost of over $1 billion. 
This is not for emissions reductions, it's just for monitoring.
  This forces us to confront antiquated laws--sometimes the facts of 
the situation changes, so today the law means something quite different 
than when it was passed. Example: When the Delaney clause was adopted 
in 1958, we were measuring contaminants in parts per million, today 
we're measuring in parts per billion or parts per quadrillion. The 
advance in technology has converted the Delaney clause from a 
reasonable rule to a ridiculous one.
  A vote for the Nickles amendment is a vote for accountability in 
Congress and the agencies.
  Who can disagree with that? If a majority in Congress believe a 
regulation should not be put in place to implement a law passed by 
Congress, then proper oversight action should be taken. Congress might 
weigh the consequences of the laws it passes and must ensure that 
regulatory agencies do not overstep the boundaries set by Congress. 
Congress delegates a great deal of decisionmaking authority to the 
regulators and if the regulators abuse that power, Congress should have 
the power to act quickly and decisively.
  Mr. President, I strongly support the Nickles-Reid amendment, and I 
urge my colleagues to adopt it.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator 
Dorgan is not ready yet, so I am going to go forward.
  First, I want to thank my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond. I am 

[[Page S4639]] privileged to serve with Senator Bond as cochair of the 
regulatory reform task force that is trying to put some common sense 
into the regulations of our country, trying to bring them under 
control.
  Senator Bond and I are having a good time, actually. He has given 
some of the examples that we have found from ordinary citizens and 
small business people who are fed up to here with the overregulation of 
our country, and I applaud him for his efforts. I appreciate the fact 
that he has just read all of the regulations that are stacked on his 
desk. I am sure it was great bedtime reading.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the Nickles regulatory review 
substitute bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. Senator 
Bond and I and Senator Nickles have been working for months, really, 
trying to see what we could do to give the business people and the 
individuals in our country some relief. In fact, Congress passes laws 
and they delegate the implementation to the regulators. But if the 
regulators do not do what is envisioned by the Congress, it is our 
responsibility to step in and to say, ``No, this is not really what we 
intended. In fact, Congress intended for you to go in this direction.''
  This bill will inject some democracy into what has been an 
increasingly arbitrary regulatory process. Americans have the right to 
expect that their Government will work for them, not against them. 
Instead, Americans have had to fight their Government to drive their 
cars, graze cattle on their ranches, build a porch on their homes, or 
operate their small businesses in a reasonable, commonsense manner.
  This legislation would provide lawmakers with a tool for ensuring 
that Federal agencies are, in fact, carrying out Congress' regulatory 
intent properly and within the confines of what Congress intended and 
no more.
  Agencies have gotten into the habit of issuing regulations which go 
so far beyond the intended purpose we hardly recognize them anymore. 
This bill is simply an extension of the system of checks and balances 
which has served our country so well for more than two centuries.
  In November, the message came loud and clear from the voters of 
America: ``We're tired of bigger Government; we are tired of business 
as usual in Washington, DC, and we are tired of the arrogance that we 
see in our Federal Government.''
  Nothing demonstrates that arrogance more than the volumes of one-
size-fits-all regulations which pour out of this city and impact on the 
daily lives of American people. The voters went to the polls because 
they felt harassed by the Government that issues these regulations 
without considering the impact on small business.
  The egregious stories about the enforcement of some of these 
regulations have become legendary, and the people are asking us to call 
a timeout, and that is what we are doing today.
  Common law has always relied on a reasonable-person approach. The 
standard behind our laws should be what would a reasonable person do in 
these circumstances?
 But many of our Federal regulations have been designed to dictate the 
way in which a person, reasonable or otherwise, must act in every 
single situation, something that is impossible to do. In short, we must 
make reasonable persons not an oxymoron in this country. We have 
literally taken the common sense out of the equation and completely 
failed to allow for the application of common sense. It is for that 
reason that this debate is dominated by example of Government 
regulators out of control.

  When you have the city of Big Spring, TX, being forced to spend $6 
million to redesign its reservoir project, to protect the Concho snake, 
which they are told is endangered, only to find out that the Concho 
snake is not really endangered after all, but after they have spent the 
$6 million, you find the unreasonable man coming to the forefront.
  When you have a plumbing company in Dayton, TX, cited for not posting 
emergency phone numbers at a construction site, and the construction 
site is three acres of empty field, and OSHA actually shut the site 
down for 3 days until the company constructed a freestanding wall in 
order to meet the OSHA requirement to post emergency phone numbers on 
that wall. Or when the Beldon Roof Co. in San Antonio, TX, is cited for 
not providing disposable drinking cups to their workers, despite the 
fact that the company went to the additional expense of providing high-
energy drinks free to their employees in glass containers, which the 
employees in turn used for drinking water. In this case, you have a 
company going the extra mile and being cited because they did not meet 
a lesser standard.
  What about when the EPA bans the smell of fresh bread from the air 
and forces bakeries, like Mrs. Baird's, to spend $5 million for a 
catalytic converter to take that smell out of the air? Or the case of 
Mrs. Clay Espy, a rancher from Fort Davis, TX. She allowed a student 
from Texas A&M to do research on plants on her ranch. He discovered a 
plant which he thought to be endangered and reported his findings. The 
Department of the Interior subsequently told Mrs. Espy that she could 
no longer graze her cattle on the ranch on which her family had grazed 
cattle for over 100 years because her cattle might eat this particular 
weed. It took a lawsuit and an expenditure of over $10,000 before the 
Department reversed its ruling and declared that the weed was in fact 
not endangered.
  And then there is Rick's High-Tech Auto Motive Service in Katy, TX; 
they have eight employees. Ten months ago, he spent $30,000 purchasing 
a console analyzer and an additional $3,500 in training. But new EPA 
regulations came out for inspection and maintenance which pulled the 
rug out from under him, and he will now have to fire at least two 
employees.
  And Howard Goldberg in El Paso, TX, owns Supreme Cleaners. Two years 
ago, he bought all new equipment. When the State implementation program 
mandated that he install recovery dryers, it cost him an additional 
$19,000 and rendered his new equipment totally useless and also 
unsalable. He is a dry cleaner. He is a small business person.
  These numerous horror stories which have come forward since we began 
our efforts for regulatory reform provide evidence of a Government out 
of control. It demonstrates the need to introduce common sense and 
reasonableness into the system where these qualities are sorely 
lacking.
  That is why one of the messages sent by the American people in 1992, 
and again in 1994, was: We have had enough. Fix this.
  The question is: Have the people in Washington heard the message? 
Will it take this time? I am not sure, because I am not sure some 
people in Washington yet realize the frustration level of people in 
America. With this bill, we are sending a message to America: Signal 
received.
  It is going to be difficult, but we are going to reverse this 
disastrous trend. Our goal must be to put the Federal Government's 
financial house in order, decrease the size of the Federal Government, 
return Federal programs to the States, reauthorize the 10th amendment 
of the Constitution of this country, which said that the Federal 
Government will have limited powers and everything else will be left to 
the States and to the people.
  The Federal Government was supposed to be a strong, but small, 
efficient Government, with very limited powers, and I think we have 
gone in the other direction.
  What are the stakes here? Mr. President, if we are going to be able 
to compete in the new global economy, we must change the regulatory 
environment and the litigation environment so our businesses can 
compete.
  To put this in perspective, for business, the cost of complying with 
current Federal regulations is $430 billion a year. The overall cost to 
the economy of regulatory compliance, if you put the mandates on State 
and local governments, is $900 billion. Now, to put that in 
perspective, our income tax brings in approximately $700 billion. So 
when you are writing out your taxes in the next few weeks, look at the 
stealth tax that is on top of the bill that you are paying, and that is 
going to be double--double--what you are writing the check for, and 
that is the real Federal encroachment on your life.
  We need to let people manage their own lives and their own money 
instead of having Washington do it, I think we 
[[Page S4640]] are perfectly capable of giving it to the American 
people.
  We need to turn the regulatory engines around. The Nickles substitute 
is an important first step on the road to regulatory reform in this 
process.
  I have been working on this legislation with Senator Nickles and 
Senator Bond for years. I hope my colleagues will side with the 
American people, who have called on us to get the bureaucracy under 
control and vote in favor of a bill that will begin to tell the 
American people that we got the message in November 1994, and we are 
going to do something about it.
  Mr. President, that is the mission. That is what we must do. We must 
show the people of this country that things are changing in Washington, 
DC, that they are getting the message inside the beltway and relief is 
on the way. That is what this bill will do. I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I listened with interest to the previous 
two speakers, and I have also listened today to Senator Glenn from Ohio 
who has spoken on this subject, as well as the Senator from Michigan, 
Senator Levin, and others.
  This subject is regulations. I suspect it is safe to say that not 
many people like regulations. It is also safe to say that the fewer 
regulations probably the better, for most parts of our country. 
However, there are certain specific areas I think most people would say 
we want to make sure the regulations are there and work. For example, 
there are important regulations relating to air safety. I have flown 
some in my life. I have not flown nearly as much as the Senator from 
Ohio who has his own plane and has orbited the Earth, as a matter of 
fact. He understands when you take off with a bearing and leave the 
ground there are certain regulations about at what height you can stay.
  If a plane is flying east, it can fly at a certain altitude. If it is 
flying west, it can fly at another altitude. It may or may not be 
cumbersome, but it is comfortable when flying east to understand the 
person flying west is not flying at your same altitude.
  That is a regulation, and one that is perfectly reasonable, of 
course. There are a lot of regulations in our country that have grown 
of public need.
  I was reading the other day about the early 1900's--1904, 1905, 
1906--when there were scandals in this country about the quality of 
meat, and some stories about some meatpacking plants. The plants were 
infested with rats. In order to get rid of the rats in the meat factory 
plant, they put out bread laced with poison. So the rats would eat the 
bread laced with poison, and the poison would kill them. The dead rats 
came out of the same shoots as the meat, and of course the public 
scandal was that that injured the people of this country, and citizens 
finally wanted to know what they were eating. Were they eating beef, or 
pork, or chicken, or rat, or poison, or poisoned bread, for that 
matter?
  From that grew a series of increasingly tough standards with respect 
to meatpacking in this country. Finally, when people began to purchase 
meat from the grocery store shelves, they understood that this was 
inspected. It was produced under certain conditions that required 
safety and cleanliness. And people had some confidence in that product.
  Those series of regulations now over nearly 80 or 90 years were born 
not of someone's interest in interfering, but were born of the interest 
in public health and safety. That is true of a lot of regulations.
  It is also true, as previous speakers have alleged, that regulations 
often become oppressive, and regulations that flow from well-intended 
law become regulations that do not make any common sense when issued, 
and are not able to easily be complied with by mom and pop businesses 
on the Main Streets of our country.
  In many cases, regulations have caused substantial anger and 
substantial anxiety. I think that unreasonable and excessive regulation 
has caused a lot of people to go very sour on the subject of Government 
itself.
  I do not disagree at all that if we miss the message in the last 
election, we missed something important. The message in the last 
election is that American people want some change. Among the important 
changes that this Congress will offer shall be changes with respect to 
Federal regulations.
  There is a right way to do that and a wrong way to do that. Some 
would say that we should just throw everything out. They contend that 
all regulations are essentially bad and we must get rid of them.
  That is not, in my judgment, a thoughtful way to do it. In my 
judgment that is a very thoughtless way to approach it. A thoughtful 
way to do this is to decide that we need to make sure when decisions 
are made by the U.S. Congress on the subject of clean air or clean 
water or poultry inspection or dozens of other things that the American 
people feel are important to their lives, that the rules and 
regulations that flow from that are rules and regulations that make 
common sense and that stick with the intent of the legislation itself.
  Now we have a couple of proposals floating around, some of which I 
think make a great deal of sense, and some of which make no sense at 
all.
  I know Senator Glenn and Senator Levin have talked about the bill 
that we dealt with in the Governmental Affairs Committee recently on 
the subject of the regulatory moratorium. The proposal was, ``Gee, we 
had this message in the last election. Regulations are essentially bad. 
So let's have a moratorium and prevent any regulation from moving at 
this point, until a date certain. Just throw a blanket over all of them 
and decide we will shut this down completely.''
  Well, I did not support that. I do not think it made any sense. When 
the moratorium bill was marked up in the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, we raised a number of examples and offered amendments. It 
became clear to me that those who proposed the moratorium had no notion 
at all about what the consequences would be. Some of the consequences 
would be just as inflammatory and detrimental as the consequences of 
saying there is no problem here at all, and let the current 
circumstance stand.
  For example, we raised questions about many rules that are now in the 
pipeline that really need to be issued. A regulation that deals with 
standards on mammography. Should that not be issued? Sure, it probably 
should be issued.
  A rule that deals with improving inspection techniques for meat and 
poultry to prevent the loss of lives because of E. coli and other food 
contaminates. We received testimony from a father who lost a son to E. 
coli infected meat. He obviously believes very strongly we ought not 
interrupt the process of making sure that regulations needed to improve 
that area continue to move.
  We should not have a moratorium on regulations that deal with that 
sort of thing. The moratorium bill would prevent timely issuance of 
rules needed to control the microbial and disinfection byproduct risks, 
such as cryptosporidium in our drinking water. The cryptosporidium 
issue came from recent outbreak in Milwaukee, WI, in which over 100 
people died and hundreds of thousands of people became ill.
  Those are the kind of things that get prevented when we establish a 
moratorium. We would interrupt very laudatory regulatory goals that we 
ought not interrupt such as those dealing with nuclear waste, with work 
safety, with seafood inspection, and a whole series of other things.
  Let me give another example. If we say we will have no regulations at 
this point, at all, I raise the question where there are some good 
regulations we want.
  There is a regulation, for example, about to be issued allowing a 
larger harvest of shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico because the previous 
regulated harvest can now be increased. There are more shrimp out 
there. So by regulation, they will allow that to increase.
  [[Page S4641]] I say to the proponents of the moratorium bill, would 
you not want that to be able to proceed? Why should we have those folks 
out there making their living on shrimp be prevented from harvesting a 
greater number of shrimp that now is deemed appropriate? We should not 
have a moratorium on a regulation like that. That is a helpful 
regulation.
  So, those are the kind of things when we propose a moratorium that I 
think render the proposal of a moratorium pretty much a thoughtless 
proposal. That does not make much sense. It is sort of like saying we 
cannot differentiate, or we cannot distinguish, or we do not have the 
time for judgment.
  So, we will shut everything down. Shut down, then, the good with the 
bad. And we shut down a whole range of things that, I think, can in a 
detrimental way affect people's daily lives.
  That is why the moratorium bill I think is not being brought to the 
floor. We raised a lot of these questions about it. We offered 
amendments, almost none of which were accepted. And, interestingly 
enough, after it was passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee 
over our objections the decision has been made, I think, that this 
moratorium bill is probably not now a good idea.
  Well, it is nice to see that that judgment was made. Now we can go on 
to some other things. We have since written another bill in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee which deals with comprehensive reform of 
the regulatory process which I did support, which Senator Roth, the 
chairman of that committee, and the ranking minority member, Senator 
Glenn supported. It makes eminent good sense.
  It says Congress and Federal agencies must change the way we do 
business on regulations. When we pass a law, and we decide we want to 
do something that represents something good for this country, such as 
the Clean Air Act, we want to make sure that the regulations that come 
from that are regulations that meet a common sense standard and are 
regulations that can conform to cost-benefit analysis and risk 
assessment made prior to the issuance of the regulation.
  We will also have proposals on the floor of the Senate that provide 
for a legislative veto so that significant regulations that are 
proposed by agencies would have to provide a time window by which the 
Congress review those regulations and decide to veto those regulations 
if the Congress said, ``This is not what we meant at all. This goes far 
afield from what this Congress intended,'' and we can veto those 
regulations.
  Both of those approaches make good sense to me and are the right way 
to deal with the regulatory reform issue. Regulatory reform is not 
being debated as to whether we should have regulatory reform. The 
debate is how. Those who bring the issue of the moratorium to the floor 
or through the committees, I think, have understood their remedy for 
how to reform the regulations is an inappropriate remedy. This is why 
we see them stalling on that and deciding they will not bring it.
  The ``how'' that is appropriate, I think, are the two approaches on 
cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment, and the legislative veto 
that are incorporated in the recently passed Governmental Affairs 
Committee bill. I think this is a rare instance, and I would like to 
see more instances, where Republicans and Democrats will join hands and 
agree that this makes good public policy. This makes good sense.
  That is that we have here on the issue of regulations. This is not a 
case of who can bring the biggest stack of regulations to the Chamber. 
I suppose as we debate these things we will have a wheelbarrow carting 
out all the regulations. Sign me up for saying some of them are dumb. 
Some of them make no sense. Sign me up for saying at least when I am 
flying at 5,500 feet, I want to know the guy flying in my direction is 
at 6,500 feet, because the regulation separates each plane by 1,000 
feet.
  There are a lot of good regulations that are necessary for health and 
safety for good living in our country. I certainly want to support 
those at the same time as we try and streamline this whole area.
  I was thinking as I was waiting to speak today, we have learned a 
lot. That also is what has caused Members to develop different 
standards in our lives.
  When I was a young boy, my father ran a gasoline station, and the 
gasoline station, like all gasoline stations in our country, would 
accept automobiles to do oil changes and lube jobs and so on. You would 
bring a car in and put it up on a hoist and drain the crankcase of oil, 
and we would put it in this big barrel. I lived in a town of 300 
people, with dirt streets. When barrel got full at my dad's station, 
our station and the other station in town, because there were two--that 
is called competition in a small town--both stations did a public 
service with their used oil. When it was time and the barrel was full, 
my dad would have me go get the little co-op tractor, hook it up to 
this tank and they had a pipe across the back with some holes in the 
pipe that you could unleash and then I would drive up and down Main 
Street and drip that used car oil on Main Street of our hometown. So 
did the other gas station, for that matter. So both of us were 
performing a public service and everybody thought it was great because 
that was blacktop, at least in our small town at that point. You would 
drop used oil on Main Street to keep the dust down on Main Street. Of 
course now, if I were doing that, I suppose I would be sent to 
Leavenworth or somewhere. It really is a very serious felony offense.
  Why? Because what we learned over the years is you destroy or you 
injure your drinking water. This seeps into groundwater and you cause 
all kinds of human health problems.
  So what we have done over the years is we have learned a lot about 
water and air and safety. We have done a lot of very good things with 
respect to regulations.
  I was around one day in my father's station when a fellow named Pete, 
who was kind of a handy guy, was working on a combine and Pete cut off 
all his fingers. I just happened to be there. There were no chain 
guards or anything on combines at that point. He was fixing a chain and 
the chain around the sprocket--there were no safety features, no 
guards--he was trying to monkey with the chain, the thing engaged and 
cut off all his fingers. The nearest hospital was 50 miles away and my 
father asked me to pick up all the fingers that were there. There was 
not microsurgery then, I should say, but we took him and his fingers 50 
miles to a hospital. They could not reattach his fingers because we did 
not know about microsurgery back then.
  The fact is today he probably would not have cut off his fingers in 
that combine because now they have chain guards and safety devices. All 
of that, yes, might be a nuisance for some people, but it is also 
something that saves fingers and hands and accidents. So we have made a 
lot of progress in a lot of these areas.
  I again want to say I think the question about regulatory reform is 
appropriately asked, not whether we have regulatory reform, because all 
of us in this Chamber believe that we need to reform our regulatory 
system; the question is how?
  The answer for me is that a moratorium is a relatively thoughtless 
approach and one in which we simply say, ``Let us not be thinking about 
the specifics, let us sort of throw a blanket over all of it and not 
worry about what the consequences of it might be. Let us decide we 
cannot issue standards on mammographies, mammogram machines. Let us 
decide we cannot issue standards on the regulation of computer 
airlines. Let us decide we cannot do all of these things because we 
have decided a moratorium is the right approach.''
  A moratorium is not the right approach. The right approach is for us 
to do what we have done already in a risk assessment bill and for us 
also to decide that we can, even as we look at regulatory reform, do 
some things that I think will get the agencies to understand that risk 
assessment must relate to regulation, to the consequences of the 
regulation for the American people.

                          ____________________